My suggestion would be to back out Ian's changes until we evolve a consensus. The consensus may ultimately turn out to be exactly what Ian has done, but it's probably sensible to avoid the risk of TH users having to make a double change. Renewed apologies for not bleating earlier about this. ok with you, Ian? (It's easy to re-apply the patch later, so there's no danger of losing the work if we end up adopting it.) Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: template-haskell-admin@haskell.org [mailto:template-haskell-admin@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | Simon Marlow | Sent: 23 May 2003 09:34 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Tim Sheard; Ian Lynagh; Manuel M T Chakravarty | Cc: template-haskell@haskell.org | Subject: RE: [Template-haskell] Release | | | > | > > * Use a naming scheme for the functions that avoids having | > | > > to suffix some with "E" or "D" and some not. Example: we | > | > > have "cond", but "letE". Better *uniformly* use a single | > | > > suffix for all functions of the same class; eg, "condExp" | > | > > and "letExp" (or "condE" and "letE" if you desperately | > | > > want to save letters). | > | > I'm sorry that I didn't respond to this at the time. I agree with the | > first sentence, but I had not absorbed the full glory of making every | > single constructor three or four characters longer. Like Tim, I don't | > think this is a good plan. We don't say JustMaybe and NothingMabye. | > Instead, we just choose constructor names that don't clash within a | > particular module. (Between unrelated modules, we can rely | > on qualified names etc.) | | We need to decide what naming scheme is going to be in GHC 6.0. I | already merged through Ian's renaming changes, so the current situation | is that GHC 6.0 has the longer names. Time is short, so I could just | back out to the previous story if there's no concensus. | | Cheers, | Simon | | _______________________________________________ | template-haskell mailing list | template-haskell@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/template-haskell