Haskell 2010: libraries
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Mon Jul 13 16:59:35 EDT 2009
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > I'm mainly concerned with projecting a consistent picture in the Report,
> > so as not to mislead or confuse people. Here are the options I can see:
> > 2. Just drop the obvious candidates (Time, Random, CPUTime,
> > Locale, Complex?), leaving the others.
> > 3. Update the libraries to match what we have at the moment.
> > e.g. rename List to Data.List, and add the handful of
> > functions that have since been added to Data.List. One
> > problem with this is that these modules are then tied to
> > the language definition, and can't be changed through
> > the usual library proposal process. Also it would seem
> > slightly strange to have a seemingly random set
> > of library modules in the report.
Another thing we can do here is specify that the contents of these
modules is a minimum and not a maximum, allowing additions through the
usual library proposal process.
> > 4. Combine 2 and 3: drop some, rename the rest.
> I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded.
> Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and
> rename them to use the new hierarchical module names.
Oh and additionally include the FFI modules under their new names.
More information about the Haskell-prime