Before we proceed, let's make some points clear.<div><br></div><div>For example, OpenGL is currently imported via "Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL". With the reasoning that "Graphics.SomeModule" (instead of "Graphics.Drawing.SomeModule") has no problem ("since we don't really look for packages based upon the module hierarchy but rather on package name, descriptions and categories on Hackage"), one might say that "Graphics.OpenGL" is okay too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Even just "OpenGL" would be fine as well with the same reasoning. We all know that "OpenGL" definitely means the graphics rendering library, and nobody is likely to use such a module name for something else. So let's rename it from "Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL" to "OpenGL". Why use unwieldy "Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL" where we can just, "import OpenGL"?</div>
<div><br></div><div>So the question is: Do you agree that "Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL" actually should have been "Graphics.OpenGL" (or just OpenGL) for wieldiness? If you don't, what is your reason? I would like to know.</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com">ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">I fail to see a reason for this (well, I can see why it might be</div>
desirable from an hierarchical point of view, but not how it will help<br>
from a usage point of view since we don't really look for packages<br>
based upon the module hierarchy but rather on package name,<br>
descriptions and categories on Hackage).<font color="#888888"><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>