Viability of having a new top-level "Graph" module namespace

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> I think that Graph is a very general top-level name and, as such, it
> is likely to result in conflicts.  Why not pick a name for your
> package (e.g., FGL or whichever new name was settled upon) and name
> the modules FGL.*?  This has the benefit of short names (no need to
> prefix everything with the meaningless Data.Graph).  It also avoids
> conflicts, as long as developers agree to choose different names for
> their packages---something they have to do if they are using Hackage
> anyway.  Last, but not least, it makes the relationship between
> packages and modules more obvious, which is very helpful when
> maintaining or trying to understand code.

Well, the idea was to call the new library inductive-graphs, so the
library would be in Graph.Inductive.  This would then fit in nicely and
be obviously connected to the overall graph-classes library which would
be in the "Graph" module itself.

-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com