On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:31 -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, since I can get whnf with `seq`. However, that does sound like a > > good idea (a patch to the parallel library? ) > > I suspect that patching parallel doesn't scale. It doesn't have a > maintainer, so it will be slow, and the package will end up dragging > in everything under the sun if we centralise instances in there. I > think that the instance belongs in bytestring instead. I know that > this would make everything depend on parallel, but that doesn't seem > as bad a problem.
This is a general problem we have with packages and instances. Perhaps in this specific case it wouldn't cause many problems to make bytestring depend on parallel (though it means bytestring cannot be a boot lib and cannot be used to implement basic IO) but in general it can be a problem. I can't see any obvious solutions. We don't want lots of tiny packages that just depend on two other packages and define a instance. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
