johan.tibell at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 01:21:57 CET 2013
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joachim Breitner
<mail at joachim-breitner.de>wrote:
> right, there is a tension between having just independent APIs and
> having also independent implementations. My main goal is to allow
> packages to specify their imports more precisely, to require less
> changes as not-so-common stuff in base evolves and to make it easier for
> alternative compiler/targets to implement parts of base; this would just
> require providing better grouped APIs.
> But if we want that while retaining the freedom to have an entangled
> implementation, we are back at the "large base + specific re-exporting
> packages" approach, which wasn’t particularly well received here.
I don't know about entangled implementations. But I'd like to have a base
package (e.g. your base-pure) that has a consistent set of basic data types
e.g. Int, Word, Float, Double, Char, String, ByteString, Text, [a], Maybe,
Either, and so forth. These are logically at the same layer. I think
splitting them according to how they happen to be implemented at the moment
is a misstake. It would give us a illogical and unstable layering in the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users