... | ... | @@ -54,22 +54,9 @@ type IN = InconvenientName |
|
|
|
|
|
## Agda: A case for why name-spacing alone is a good enough solution
|
|
|
|
|
|
- You can use a type synonym to abbreviate the namespace part (as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shown above.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If there's no ambiguity you don't need to use a namespace (e.g. you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can use 'a' instead of 'Record.a').
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The namespace name is predictable (e.g. \<Typename\>.\<fieldname\>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while ad-hoc prefixes tend to use different conventions e.g. the whole
|
|
|
record name (e.g. 'recordA') or some abbreviation thereof (e.g.
|
|
|
'rcrdA'.)
|
|
|
- You can use a type synonym to abbreviate the namespace part (as shown above.)
|
|
|
- If there's no ambiguity you don't need to use a namespace (e.g. you can use 'a' instead of 'Record.a').
|
|
|
- The namespace name is predictable (e.g. \<Typename\>.\<fieldname\>) while ad-hoc prefixes tend to use different conventions e.g. the whole record name (e.g. 'recordA') or some abbreviation thereof (e.g. 'rcrdA'.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main argument for this approach is its simplicity; it's simple to
|
... | ... | |