On 8/30/12 10:16 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <r...@cse.unsw.edu.au>
wrote:
As I said earlier, I will definitely remove the .Safe modules. I'm not
particularly keen on adding .Unsafe modules but in the scheme you're
proposing, they'll just reexport a few functions and are (hopefully) easy
to generate automatically so if there really is demand for it, I'll add
them. Although I'd like to point out that with these scheme, vector won't
have any SafeHaskell-safe modules so I'm not entirely sure what the point
is, given
that the entire discussion was because people objected to removing support
for SafeHaskell.
My main interest is having the .Safe modules removed.
I'm +1 to this part. As you say, having .Safe modules is like having
.Pure modules: utter foolishness for Haskell.
I'm all for momentum towards Safe Haskell. But I'd really rather not
revisit our previous discussion on that matter. I'd say we should:
(1) add vector to the Platform, sans .Safe modules
(2) move the less objective/objectionable packages towards Safe Haskell,
in order to instill that as a virtue and to get some empirical data
about how users interact with Safe Haskell
(3) revisit the Safe Haskell + vector issues once Safe Haskell is more
popular and we have some better ideas what the practical arguments are
(as opposed to just the theoretical ones).
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Haskell-platform mailing list
Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org
http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
