Thanks David.<br><br>I'm glad to see it was discussed in the wiki. (Btw, my 2 cents is that I like the comment pragmas more than new keywords.)<div><br></div><div>The issue that I think doesn't make it into the wiki is of splitting, not modules, but<b> type-classes</b>. That's where I think it becomes a more serious issue.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Do you think a symbol-level Safe Haskell would be able to distinguish one method of a type class as unsafe, while the others are safe?</div><div><br></div><div> -Ryan</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. In my two examples -- </div>
<div> There's only one "Acc" type and Accelerate's "fold" can pretty easily be moved into an .Unsafe module, though it breaks the one-giant-module-for-the-whole-programming-model thing it has going now. In the Par example on the other hand type classes are used to abstract over different implementations, so that's where we run into the safe/unsafe factoring problem.</div>