Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 25/09/2012 15:29, Johan Tibell wrote: Hi all, After discussing this proposal at ICFP and with the Haskell Platform committee, we've decided that there's a rough consensus for adding vector to the platform. We will leave the following open issue for the future: * Using SafeHaskell in the p

Re: gearing up for 2012.4.0.0

On 30/08/2012 06:46, Jens Petersen wrote: If you are GHC Central: I couldn't find a timeline for 7.6. Will that have hit a stable release by October 1st, or should we be planning on shipping 7.4.2 (which I think would be fine.) Was there response/update to this? :) I know 7.6.1 rc1 has been ou

Re: Removing the .Safe modules from vector (was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 30/08/2012 15:16, Johan Tibell wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy 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 a

Re: Removing the .Safe modules from vector (was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 30/08/2012 02:33, Johan Tibell wrote: Hi all, After reading the Safe Haskell paper today, I got the impression that no one actually wants the .Safe modules currently in vector. If vector was to be made Safe Haskell friendly, we should instead add .Unsafe modules (and have the rest of the modu

Re: HP 2012.4.0.0 -- Call for Proposals

On 21/08/2012 19:05, Johan Tibell wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Simon Marlow wrote: I'm still keen to see the package go in, mainly because when you start doing concurrent programming you quite quickly run into the nee

Re: HP 2012.4.0.0 -- Call for Proposals

There's also a proposal (by me) to include the async package: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Proposals/async The deadlines have now expired. During the discussion several people were positive about the package, however I don't think anyone expressed an opinion specifically on w

Re: HP 2012 compatibility with latest Apple software

On 26/07/2012 01:01, Mark Lentczner wrote: I'd love to get field reports from anyone who's tried it. I've not updated myself yet... (nor am I particular relishing the idea of now having to produce and test HP for three generations of Mac OS X :-( ) There was some trouble with prerelea

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 17/07/12 10:28, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: The fact that you can't do arbitrary side effects in ST follows from the definition of safety and the fact that runST injects ST computations into pure computations. So there's really no design choice here. The same

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 16/07/2012 16:17, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: Ah ok, so your concern was that you couldn't easily find out whether runST was safe or not? If you look at the library docs: Whether runST is safe or not has a huge impact on what ST code I can declare Trustworthy even

Re: Safe Haskell and Haskell Platform: near-term tactics

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 nee

Re: Safe Haskell and Haskell Platform: near-term tactics

On 16/07/12 18:09, Yitzchak Gale wrote: I wrote: I glanced through the packages in the platform not yet done. The only packages where I saw any issues were vector, which is under discussion, and network, where the unsafe interface that pokes into memory already appears to be neatly separated out

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 16/07/2012 15:25, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: On 16/07/2012 13:55, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: Just to repeat what I said earlier, I don't see there being any objection to putting unsafeRead with the other unsafe functions in vector, even t

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 16/07/2012 13:18, Gábor Lehel wrote: With apologies for repeating myself, isn't the fact that unsafeRead and unsafeWrite can access arbitrary memory locations a problem? Does memory safety not matter? The definition of safety in Safe Haskell requires type safety, it does not impose any ext

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 16/07/2012 13:55, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: Just to repeat what I said earlier, I don't see there being any objection to putting unsafeRead with the other unsafe functions in vector, even though technically it is safe. Actually, this particular bit probably is

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 16/07/2012 11:01, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Thomas Schilling wrote: To be fair, regardless of SH, I'd consider it good API design to put unsafe things into a separate module. I'll ask again: why is putting unsafe* functions into a separate module preferable to just following the unsafe* nam

Re: safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 14/07/2012 13:27, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Henning Thielemann mailto:lemm...@henning-thielemann.de>> wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Brandon Allbery wrote: And now I'm having a "so what's the point?" moment? All this effort so we can just mark

Re: safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 13/07/12 21:18, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: Hi Thomas, All these questions are answered by the Haskell Symposium paper, which we'll post very shortly. FYI, the FFI is mostly safe, as long as you declare foreign imports to have an IO result type (otherwise

Re: safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 13/07/2012 01:31, Bardur Arantsson wrote: On 07/12/2012 11:16 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: Hi Thomas, All these questions are answered by the Haskell Symposium paper, which we'll post very shortly. THANK YOU! This discussion has been ridiculuously abstract and confusing without any

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 13/07/2012 05:35, Gregory Collins wrote: Hi Simon, On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Simon Marlow mailto:marlo...@gmail.com>> wrote: Safe Haskell isn't about catching bugs. It's about making it possible to program with stronger guarantees than w

Re: safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

On 11/07/12 22:43, Johan Tibell wrote: No, all functions that use unsafe functions need to be moved to an .Unsafe module if the former is to be marked as Safe (which is what's being proposed.) Every time a function changes to/from using an unsafe function (even if indirectly) it needs to be jugg

Re: safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

Hi Thomas, All these questions are answered by the Haskell Symposium paper, which we'll post very shortly. FYI, the FFI is mostly safe, as long as you declare foreign imports to have an IO result type (otherwise it's unsafePerformIO, and hence unsafe). Unsafety is not viral: as soon as you h

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

Hi Johan, Thanks for replying. I think there are one or two slight misconceptions about Safe Haskell - that's understandable, I think the documentation could be improved, and the paper that explains it properly isn't available yet (we only just finished the camera-ready copy, so it'll be ava

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 05/07/2012 14:20, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: From the maintainance point of view, this would become easier if I had *.Unsafe modules rather than the *.Safe ones. But this is a signficant restructuring and the only reason to do it would be to support SafeHaskell. Moreover, I believe (though I

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 04/07/2012 16:33, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: Simon Marlow wrote: We should be moving towards safe APIs by default, and separating out unsafe APIs into separate modules. I completely agree with separating out unsafe APIs but I don't understand why modules are the right granularity for

Re: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

On 18/06/2012 23:06, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: On 18/06/2012, at 19:39, Johan Tibell wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote: I like the idea of the vector-safe package. Are you also proposing to add this package to the HP? (I would also be +1 on that) I think it makes se

Re: Haskell platform proposal: the async package

On 13/06/2012 20:39, Bardur Arantsson wrote: On 06/13/2012 02:56 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: I am making a formal proposal to have the async package included in the Haskell Platform: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Proposals/async See the wiki paage for details, and a list of

Haskell platform proposal: the async package

I am making a formal proposal to have the async package included in the Haskell Platform: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Proposals/async See the wiki paage for details, and a list of open issues for discussion. I just uploaded the async package itself to Hackage: http://hac

Fwd: 404 error

Original Message Subject: 404 error Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:53:51 +0200 From: Kooothor To: cont...@haskell.org, ab...@haskell.org, postmas...@haskell.org, ad...@haskell.org, r...@haskell.org Hello, I noticed the Archlinux link on http://hackage.haskell.org/platform//linux.h

Re: Most popular libraries not in the HP

On 15/07/2010 21:01, Don Stewart wrote: > Questions remain about what GUI lib to bring in, to augment the OpenGL > suite. > > * gtk2hs > * wxHaskell > > Both cabalized, but will hamper the ease of building from source (since > they bring in big C lib deps). I like gtk2hs a lot, and I've

Re: Haskell Platform 2010.2.0.0 RC

On 15/07/2010 19:22, Don Stewart wrote: >> nomeata: >>> >>> this leads us to the question: What do we want in squeeze? Are we happy >>> with the current situation? Or should we try to get 6.12.3 and 2010.2. >>> ready? >> > > Here's a more complete changelog, > > http://code.haskell.org/haskell

Re: Most popular libraries not in the HP

On 15/07/2010 23:53, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Don Stewart > wrote: > > Things we might realistically propose to add for 2011.1 > > New capabilities: > * Binary parsing: binary + cereal ? > > > Why both? Their paralle

Re: Haskell Platform 2010.1.0.0 Windows installer RC2

On 27/03/2010 20:23, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've uploaded the second RC of the Haskell Platform 2010.1.0.0 > Windows installer to > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2010.1.0.0-setup.exe > > Unless someone finds serious bugs in this RC, it can be released unchanged

Re: Haskell Platform package additions: decision time!

On 14/09/2009 23:36, Niklas Broberg wrote: >> So far we have had a few people send in comments (thanks particularly to >> Ian and Simon) but a few more would not go amiss, even if it's just >> "yes". > > Yes. > >> Concern 1: "The policy document itself is too long and too detailed." >> >> Quick pol

Re: Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

On 20/08/2009 03:04, Duncan Coutts wrote: > All, > > The Haskell Platform steering committee have been very busy over the > past two weeks drafting, discussing and redrafting. > > The result is our recommendation to the libraries list for a procedure > for adding new packages to the Haskell Platfor

Re: proposal for updates in next major HP release

On 14/08/2009 20:54, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 15:51 -0400, David Menendez wrote: > >> It would be nice if the packages in the Haskell Platform met some >> minimum standards for documentation. > > Further on this topic... > > I think it's a problem with many of our libs that whil

Re: Question of HP updates that depend on new packages

On 17/08/2009 14:10, Duncan Coutts wrote: > All, > > A requirement of packages in the platform is that all dependencies of > packages also be in the platform (excluding C libs). > > When an updated version of an existing platform package includes > dependencies on packages that are currently outsid

Re: [Fwd: Job for someone: make a VM image for GHC development]

On 15/07/2009 23:38, João Paulo Pizani Flor wrote: > Hello people, > > I'm a great fan and user of Haskell since around one year ago, and have > been using it for several personal and college tasks. I also use Linux a > lot, and have been using several distros since around 2000. > > I am pretty int

Re: Windows installer - beta release

On 02/05/2009 07:24, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Bulat, > > Bulat Ziganshin writes: > btw, HP installer creates "Start menu/Haskell Platform/6.10.2" menu. may be it should be "Start menu/Haskell Platform/2009.0.0"? >>> The default value is "GHC/6.10.2" - I assume that you >>> changed