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 this, e
Simon Marlow wrote:
> 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
Simon Marlow wrote:
> 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 modul
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
