Am 21.05.2014 20:46, schrieb Michael Snoyman:
I honestly don't feel very strongly about usage of Default. What I've found it useful for is a very narrow category: a function which takes a configuration parameter that users likely never want to modify. For example: xml-conduit has various parsing and rendering settings, but most use cases are good with the default.
Why not defining a class in xml-conduit then? Nonetheless I think, this is abuse of the type system. Type classes are for writing generic code, not for re-use of short names.
There's a cognitive overhead for a user to remember the default parameter name (is it defaultXMLSettings? defaultXmlSettings? defParseSettings?).
It is simple if you use qualified names consistently: XMLSettings.default if XMLSettings is the module that defines the XML configuration type.