On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Mark Lentczner <mark.lentcz...@gmail.com> wrote: > ...I went back and looked > at Vector and now I see that there are large set of ".Safe" variants that > are no more than re-exports of the exact same functions from the non .Safe > versions of the modules with an extra safe haskell declaration added.... > I think the state of affairs stinks. It will do nothing but confuse the heck > out of users
Simon already pointed out that, in his opinion, the correct way to support SH would be: - rename M to M.Internal (or suitable alternative) - rename M.Safe to M - add a (small) M.Unsafe where necessary But that would break backwards compatibility for the unsafe parts of the API. It's up to the package maintainers whether or not they want to do that. If not, I would say revert to no Safe Haskell support and accept it in the platform. However, add a haddock comment something like this: "Safe Haskell: If you do not use any functions in this module whose name contains the word 'unsafe', you can mark your module as 'Trustworthy'. Otherwise, please consult <Simon's SH paper>." Thanks, Yitz _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
