Henning, all,
I decided to go with 'Numeric.Units.Dimensional'. I feel that
'Dimensional' provides sufficient differentiation as unit libraries go
and the preceding 'Numeric.Units' takes care of my concern of
'Dimensional' being too vague.
Thanks all for your inputs!
I've released dimensional-0.7 with the new module name space and a few
small additions w.r.t. version 0.6. It can be downloaded from the
project homepage[1] or hackage.
Regards,
Bjorn Buckwalter
[1] http://dimensional.googlecode.com/
On 10/1/07, Henning Thielemann
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Björn Buckwalter wrote:
Taken further though, if someone develops another "static" unit library where should they put it? An arbitrarily complex tree of namespaces could be built trying to distinguish libraries to anticipate future clashes.
From their names it's not obvious what distinguishes them from other
This leads me to wonder -- is it better for a library to have a more or less arbitrary differentiating name rather than a descriptive name? Examples are 'Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec', 'Text.Parsers.Frisby'. parsers in the same namespace but at least the tree is fairly flat and hopefully narrowed down enough to permit investigating each alternative. In the units case I imagine 'Numeric.Units.SomethingArbitrary' would be appropriate.
Indeed, someone might implement static unit checking by a different approach. We cannot predict this. So actually it seems to be better to use an arbitrary differentiating name, say
Numeric.Units.Bucky Numeric.Units.Lemming
Using module names which describe only the module function might work if there is consensus on its relevance and its API. That is, only for very basic modules of a 'standard library'.