On 16/07/12 18:32, Gregory Collins wrote:
This slightly underestimates the amount of work required. Each package's
api must be carefully audited for unsafe functions, you can't just slap
a "trustworthy" on everything and call it a day. If any legitimately
unsafe functions are found, the APIs need to be separated out into safe
and unsafe modules, and the old modules must go through a deprecation cycle.
Also, because I figured this might be your answer, I want to make it
clear that "emailing package authors and demanding that they do the
legwork" is the unfair scenario that I thought we should avoid. If
advocates of Safe Haskell want to insist that all of the platform
packages are Safe Haskell-clean, then I think the onus is on them to
provide patches. Not to mention, a large percentage of the platform
packages are maintained by the libraries community at large, there's no
specific maintainer to harass.
I agree, we should send patches to maintainers.
In fact, a lot of the packages are maintained by GHC now, following the
last upheaval of the library submissions process.
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions
A quick audit of platform packages:
* Data.Text.Array is marked as "Safe-Inferred", but exports the
following function:
unsafeIndex :: Array -> Int -> Word16
I think you're seeing the Haddock bug there. It should be Unsafe.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-platform mailing list
Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org
http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
