On Tuesday 30 Mar 2004 10:19 am, Simon Marlow wrote:
The idea is that community self-organisation replaces strict central registration of library names. I think this is an improvement, but perhaps it's a cop out. What do others think?
I think there should be some concensus about the overall structure of the hierarchy, and that should be documented somewhere (so developers don't go and reinvent their own slightly different names for concepts which are already covered). Perhaps it would suffice to just do this for the top level classifications.
In my case I have a pretty complete binding to SDL which I was thinking of tidying up and releasing for other Haskellers. I call it HSDL :-)
But should it go in the Graphics Heirarchy, if so where? Graphics.HSDL? SDL also covers other functionality (like audio) so I was thinking of calling it Multimedia.HSDL, but at present there's no Multimedia top level AFAIK (but then how would I know anyway?). Perhaps someone's already using Multi_Media instead? Or maybe my binding isn't necessarily unique, so perhaps Multimedia.SDL.HSDL? SDL also has quite few bolt on extras too which other people might write bindings for.
There's a kind of "design document" for the hierarchy, which is currently in CVS: fptools/libraries/doc/lib-hierarchy.html. It's also here: http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/lib-hierarchy.html As we agree on locations for libraries on this list, I've been putting them in the document. Not all the libraries exist yet - this is just a place to put the design of the hierarchy. Multimedia.SDL sounds ok to me. Cheers, Simon