On 6 September 2010 10:09, han <e...@xtendo.org> wrote: > I think there should be Graphics.Drawing (along with Graphics.Rendering) and > many graphics packages should go into it.
Why? > So > * Graphics.Rendering will contain more technical and rendering-engine-level > packages (OpenGL, GD, ...) > * while Graphics.Drawing will be for higher-level and user-friendlier > drawing tools. (gloss, graphics-drawingcombinators, hieroglyph, Chart, ...) > Currently most graphics packages are thrown into Graphics.Rendering or even > Graphics. I think we all agree that having a standalone package right under > Graphics is undesirable. Why is it undesirable? Henning Thielmann's gnuplot package for example uses Graphics.Gnuplot.*. Whilst we could make that Graphics.Plotting.Gnuplot.*, the module names are getting a little unwieldy then. > There needs to be at least one subcategory. (which > is why I also think Win32 and X11 should be moved from Graphics to > Graphics.UI.) > What do you think? I fail to see a reason for this (well, I can see why it might be desirable from an hierarchical point of view, but not how it will help from a usage point of view since we don't really look for packages based upon the module hierarchy but rather on package name, descriptions and categories on Hackage). -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
