For those interested, the overall results are in: http://ivanmiljenovic.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/results-of-fgl-naming-survey/ Ivan Miljenovic writes:

Thank you for all the people who have voted; we so far have 42 results in about 12 hours.

Some indication of the results so far:

* 62% prefer inductive-graphs

* 62% have indicated that they use fgl or do some graph-related stuff (no correlation, just an interesting coincidence; I have not as yet done the number crunching to tell what the most popular name is for people that actually use fgl or other graph stuff).

* Someone stated that ponies smell sweaty... not sure how that's relevant, but OK.

* At least two people prefer the new name as it isn't an acronym (one because acronyms aren't needed and the term functional is redundant, the other because the term "graph" isn't directly in the package name).

* Martin Erwig himself said that he thinks we should keep using the name "fgl".

So, keep the votes coming in (I actually didn't expect this many already)!

On 14 July 2010 00:24, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

...

Whether or not the new FGL that Thomas Bereknyei and I are working on should keep the name was a semi-hot issue when we first mentioned the fact that we were working on a new version about a month ago.  As such, I've created a survey here to try and find out what the Haskell community overall thinks we should call it: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGpzMmFnUWY3Uktodk5wdHlLQk5...

More info can be found on the actual survey page.

-- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com

-- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com