And the one other thing is that it increases (to me) the at-a-glance comprehensibility of the module. If I'm reading over soemone else's code and I want to get a feel for where s/he put things, the fully qualified module structure and the fully qualified names in the import statements make it easy to get a feel for the organizational structure of the program.
That way, on first reading I don't have to go through the whole module to figure out what was contained in Utils when I see the phrase import Utils or even import qualified Utils at the top of the module. -- Jeff On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Heard<jefferson.r.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, and I don't disagree with that at all. I just just have an > aesthetic preference for multiply qualified library names. Chalk it > up to the fact that my partner's a librarian, so I'm used to putting > things in categories, subcategories, and sub-sub-categories :-) > > -- Jeff > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Henning > Thielemann<lemm...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jeff Heard wrote: >> >>> case in point: Hieroglyph. What's it do? import Hieroglyph. Is >>> there any clue by my function names which ones belong to a library >>> called Hieroglyph? No. However, import >>> Graphics.Rendering.Hieroglyph, and I see a function somewhere in the >>> code called "arc" or "plane" or "circle", and I know it probably goes >>> with the rendering package. >> >> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Import_modules_properly >> > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
