On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jan-Willem Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's one caveat: Always choose descriptive names, even if you are
assuming that you will usually use a qualified import. The
following are wonderful names, even though they conflict with the
prelude: null
filter
map
lookup
import Prelude as P
Precisely. If I import the prelude qualified and your library
unqualified, is my code readable? I should hope it is. And if the
library used the overlapping names reasonably, you shouldn't be left
wondering when you read my code.
The following are terrible names:
T
C
Not to mention that this usage is hideously confusing while looking
at
the haddock docs.
But that will be resolved when Haddock can show identifiers with
qualifications.
I specifically *didn't* bring up the Haddock issue, because I think
it's a side show. Fundamentally, these types are neither clear nor
descriptive. Their treatment by one or another documentation tool is,
at some level, beside the point.
It's good to have fine grained modules, because you can more easily
exchange the parts you want different from the standard way. For
reducing
import lists for simple songs I think we could provide wrapper
modules.
Make your modules as small as you like; small modules are great. But
keep things readable, please!
-Jan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
