base package (Was: GHC 7.8 release?)
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 17:42:54 CET 2013
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Joachim Breitner
<mail at joachim-breitner.de>wrote:
> Maybe the proper is to reverse the whole approach: Leave base as it is,
> and then build re-exporting smaller packages (e.g. a base-pure) on top
> of it. The advantage is:
> * No need to rewrite the tightly intertwined base.
> * Libraries still have the option to have tighter dependencies.
> * Base can evolve with lots of breaking changes, as long as they
> do not affect the API by the smaller packages.
> * Development of this collection can happen outside the GHC tree.
> * Alternative implementations for (some of) these packages can be
> created, if the reason why they could not be moved out of base
> is one of implementation, not of API
> How does that sound?
I'm not in favor of this approach as it precludes pushing any data types
down the stack. In particular, we want text and bytestring to be below the
I/O layer, so we can defined Handles that work with those in base itself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users