On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > > I'm mainly concerned with projecting a consistent picture in the Report, > > so as not to mislead or confuse people. Here are the options I can see: > > > 2. Just drop the obvious candidates (Time, Random, CPUTime, > > Locale, Complex?), leaving the others. > > > > 3. Update the libraries to match what we have at the moment. > > e.g. rename List to Data.List, and add the handful of > > functions that have since been added to Data.List. One > > problem with this is that these modules are then tied to > > the language definition, and can't be changed through > > the usual library proposal process. Also it would seem > > slightly strange to have a seemingly random set > > of library modules in the report.
Another thing we can do here is specify that the contents of these modules is a minimum and not a maximum, allowing additions through the usual library proposal process. > > 4. Combine 2 and 3: drop some, rename the rest. > > I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded. > Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and > rename them to use the new hierarchical module names. Oh and additionally include the FFI modules under their new names. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
