On 15 July 2012 14:53, Yitzchak Gale <g...@sefer.org> wrote: > 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>."
To be fair, regardless of SH, I'd consider it good API design to put unsafe things into a separate module. I'd be interested to know what exactly the problem is with moving these functions into a separate module. If the only argument for not making this change is to avoid breaking the API then we should do it *before* including vector into the platform. P.S.: I really wish we had a tool like "gofix" that automates trivial API updates. That way simple API changes could be automated. There are tools like this for Java and C, too. _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
