Is this an invitation for input from the community? If so, my comments follow. If not, it would be best to stop reading here...
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might make sense to break up Haskore into a couple of different > packages, as I believe Stefan Kersten suggested. I will have to think > more about that. It might also make sense to release a couple of > standard wrapper modules that set up typical use cases of Haskore. I personally favor separate packages because I think it's easier to maintain smaller packages for multiple platforms, especially where those packages interface with non-Haskell libraries or are other prone to difficulties during installation. If that's not likely to be an issue for the next major Haskore, I have no problems with 1 package. My 2 cents. > What Henning and I don't quite agree on is the use of the "Modula II" > style of naming datatypes, e.g. Haskore.Duration.T, etc. I personally > find this confusing (as did many of my students), and would prefer a > more mnemonic name, even if redundant. I prefer to think of a module as > encapsulating a single coherent concept, and sometimes that concept > involves more than one data type, or perhaps none at all (being, > perhaps, a collection of functions or type classes), in which case the > "T" naming convention become problematical. +1 for the "single coherent concept" module definition Thanks, John _______________________________________________ haskell-art mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
