On 14/07/2009 15:04, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 07:48:36AM +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library
standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the
entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude)
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:39:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
But there's a solution: we could remove the standard modules from
base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will just
be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals, this will be easy to
do). Most
On 15/07/2009 15:47, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
But there's a solution: we could remove the standard modules from
base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will
just be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals, this will be
easy to do). Most packages will then have
On 15/07/2009 15:54, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:39:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
But there's a solution: we could remove the standard modules from
base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will just
be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals, this
Would it be possible for the language to require that implementations
support linking multiple versions of packages (at least base and
haskell-std) into a single running instance? That would solve the
issue of using two libs that depend on different versions.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:54 AM,
