Hi Daniel thank you for your feedback.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Daniel Trstenjak <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at the function names: have you got a c programming background? > Instead of using these prefixes you could put the functions into separate > modules. Although I do have some background in C programming, these naming schemes are not my idea. Instead the function names match the names of the corresponding GDB/MI commands. I thought it would make sense to use these names for ease of reference. Given this, would you still prefer them being grouped in separate modules? > If the interface depends on the GDB version, than it could make sense to > encode the GDB version into the module name, something like: > Gdbmi.V7_4.Commands Gdbmi.Commands is not the only module that depends on the GDB version. GDB/MI is in general still evolving and GDB's compliance with the documentation keeps on changing on all levels. So I would have to maintain all hgdbmi modules for each GDB version. Do you think this makes sense and is worth the effort? Greetings, Alex _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
