On 09/07/2009 13:26, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, July 9, 2009, 3:46:31 PM, you wrote:
This would be a bold step, in that we would be effectively standardising
a lot more libraries than the current language standard. The base
package is a fairly random bag of library modules, for instance. It
The base library is under the question, but remaining libs of ghc/HP
are in rather good shape
of course, without base we can't do even i/o, so questions still
remains. in particular, you plan to do something with base in 6.12
although it was not yet decided what exactly
so these two discussions (what to do with libs in 6.12 and what to do
with libs in Report) may go together
ideally, we would split base into smaller and versionable packages. at
least in form of interfaces, while implementations will just import
everything from base
I feel this discussion is widening a bit too far.
The question at hand is how to make the Haskell 2010 Report
self-consistent, avoid confusing users, and avoid perpetuating obsolete
libraries. The Haskell Report doesn't have to specify libraries, it is
not supposed to be a complete specification of the Haskell universe, it
is a specification of the language.
Remember that we're talking here about a *standard*. The Haskell
Platform libraries, while being a hugely useful resource, are not
specified to the level of precision we would expect for a Haskell
standard. Neither have they undergone the level of scrutiny that we
would ideally subject libraries to. So we can't just throw all this
stuff in the standard and say "done!".
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
