I think it's because of tradition. Originally Haskell didn't have qualified names, only renaming. (Which, IMHO, was a wrong decision in the original Haskell design.)
-- Lennart
Koen Claessen wrote:
| http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always wondered why the module system is not used at all in these conventions. I mean, the function names seem to come straight from the Haskell 1.2 days when there was no module system!
What I mean is, instead of:
newIORef, writeIORef, readIORef
We could have:
IORef.new, IORef.write, IORef.read
(Or: new, write, read if all we use are IORefs.)
And instead of:
mapSet, emptySet, ...
We have:
Set.map, Set.empty, ...
This is how Chris does it in Edison.
Why isn't this used more?
/Koen
-- Koen Claessen http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~koen/ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
