Hi!
I just got an idea for hackage feature. All functions/modules listed
there could have some mark if they or any function/module they use
uses an unsafe* function. Of course this will make probably almost
everything marked as unsafe, but this is the idea - to raise awareness
about that so that
On 16 September 2010 16:04, Mitar mmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just got an idea for hackage feature. All functions/modules listed
there could have some mark if they or any function/module they use
uses an unsafe* function. Of course this will make probably almost
everything marked as
As we were discussing in #haskell, it would have to be more involved than
just a taint bit. A listing showing the taint sources of a given package
would give you confidence in its good behavior.
For example, if my nice, pure package's taint list showed that my only taint
sources were through my
On 16 September 2010 17:00, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
But maybe one day we'll have way more than just Stability: experimental;
Version: 0.0.1 on hackage, but instead:
Stability: experimental
Version: 0.0.1
Test coverage: 98%
User stability rating: 86%
User API quality
Yeah, those other things were part of the bigger picture that I hope
hackage will get some day: two axes of user rating, plus optional support
for visualizing things like test coverage and regression tests that you
include in your cabal file (cabal test was being worked on during one of
this
Yeah, those other things were part of the bigger picture that I hope
hackage will get some day: two axes of user rating, plus optional support
for visualizing things like test coverage and regression tests that you
include in your cabal file (cabal test was being worked on during one of
this
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ville Tirronen alea...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be happy even if there was a mandatory whats new field on packages. I
see version numbers flashing by but that doesn't really tell me whats
happening.
See:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/299
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb:
On 16 September 2010 16:04, Mitar mmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just got an idea for hackage feature. All functions/modules listed
there could have some mark if they or any function/module they use
uses an unsafe* function. Of course this will make probably
On 17 September 2010 03:18, Henning Thielemann
schlepp...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb:
The problem with this is: unsafe* functions would be better called
yesIGuaranteeThatUsingThisFunctionDoesResultInAReferentiallyTransparentEntityAndItsOKForMeToUseIt*.
They
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2010 03:18, Henning Thielemann
My suggestion is to move the Unsafe modules to a new package 'unsafe'.
Then you can easily spot all dirty packages by looking at reverse
dependencies of
On 17 September 2010 10:12, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2010 03:18, Henning Thielemann
My suggestion is to move the Unsafe modules to a new package 'unsafe'.
Then you can
11 matches
Mail list logo
