Your frustration is understandable given the lack of charity I've
shown in this thread. I apologize and promise to try to be better.
I know I'm repeating myself annoyingly, but I think the most
productive way to move forward is if you could identify problems that
you're trying to solve where the
I don't think I need charity.
I thought the vision for the new package system had already been
explained adequately. I would be very interested to learn how the model
is well-suited to third-party developers like me.
But -- I mean this constructively -- I'd be happy if someone simply came
I think there is perhaps a misunderstanding.
The design of the pkg system is (partly) driven by the observations
the core team has about what gives us special privilege and then
working to lift those restrictions so we don't need to operate under
that special privilege. And I'll note that this
Thanks for being with with us for so long.
I think you misunderstood the word 'charity' here and perhaps Jay could have
used a different, a more appropriate word than 'charity', which I now realize
can have a negative connotation.
Otherwise, I think that the package system design is about
I think this what's the matter with conflicts, and an arbitrary package
putting things wherever it wants, and not having a notion of
non-backward-compatibility is similar to what's the matter with using
eval for everything or what's the matter with defmacro or what's the
big deal about having
To play the role of Mr. Anecdote:
Someone mentioned Cabal. Last week at Hacker School, I paired for a
few hours with someone more-experienced in Haskell, to try using
Template Haskell on a toy project I'd done. My project uses Pandoc.
Apparently Pandoc is felt to download half the internet's
We should change that example. It would indeed be strange for package
named tic-tac-toe would introduce a `data/matrix` module, and the
documentation really shouldn't suggest that it makes sense for a
package to introduce overlaps that are not reasonably expected from the
package name.
There are
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
There are plenty of real examples where it's sensible for different
packages to introduce modules in overlapping collections, though.
Sometimes, it's because different packages implement different facets
of a conceptual
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote on 11/30/2014 10:55 AM:
Another example where this happens (and in a way that couldn't be
fixed by combining packages) is with typed versions of libraries. If I
release a package with the collection `foo`, and then someone else
produces a typed version of it, that will
The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO connection between
the name of a package and the provided modules. There is no such thing as a
package namespace.
Packages may find it convenient to build and provide reusable functionality
with many organizational names. This is
I do not think we should change the example. I do not want people to
falsely believe that they can any expectation of the modules provided by a
package from its name. In particular, your comment about this being
strange is not supported by the package system's promises.
Jay
On Sunday, November
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM:
The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO connection
between the name of a package and the provided modules. There is no
such thing as a package namespace.
I'd really like there to be. For third-party packages.
Packages may find
On Sunday, November 30, 2014, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM:
The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO connection
between the name of a package and the provided modules. There is no such
thing as a package namespace.
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:30 PM:
On Sunday, November 30, 2014, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org
mailto:n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM:
The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO
connection between the name
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Packages may find it convenient to build and provide reusable
functionality with many organizational names. This is particularly true of
data, as many packages may have useful data structures.
Of course, as such
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote on 11/30/2014 12:52 PM:
Are you saying that `data` is some kind of classification of what this
module is about, and in this case specifically, this module, which is part
of some more specific package, happens to be regarding general-purpose data
structures, so we're
Just to be clear. I don't think that tic-tac-toe and data/matrix
are the important thing in this example. The important thing is that
the package name and the module don't share a prefix. Another good
example would be something like graphs and data/fib-heap or
something where it may to be easier
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:30 PM:
On Sunday, November 30, 2014, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org
mailto:n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM:
The
18 matches
Mail list logo
