RE: Alternative hierarchy proposal.
Please mind the "style warning" http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2001-February/000473.html
MArray -- (opt) IOArray -- mutable arrays in the IO/ST monads
MArray looks cryptic. Why not Array.Mutable, and similar. There are a few more places where this applies.
Of course this is rather irrelevant to the layout discussion now. But perhaps not, since it's the question of introducing small sub-modules, or using name prefixes.
Good point. However, this scheme is following another style guideline, which is that the module name follows the type name, when the module defines a type. Perhaps the MArray type should also be renamed to Mutable (i.e. Haskell.Lang.Array.Mutable qualified), but this doesn't look as nice. Cheers, Simon
Good point. However, this scheme is following another style guideline, which is that the module name follows the type name, when the module defines a type.
Yes this is a good principle, and it should be kept.
Perhaps the MArray type should also be renamed
That was my intention.
to Mutable (i.e. Haskell.Lang.Array.Mutable qualified), but this doesn't look as nice.
So what about ...Mutable.Array, then? The type name would be `Array'. What we're in fact trying to do here, roughly, is to give different implementations of one interface. Well, it's not exactly the same, but still these are Arrays. The Edison user guide gives a good discussion of similar design decisions. Regards, -- -- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ -- -- joe@informatik.uni-leipzig.de -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --
participants (2)
-
Johannes Waldmann -
Simon Marlow