ekarttun at cs.helsinki.fi
Thu Mar 2 08:05:59 EST 2006
On 02.03 12:22, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I don't suggest changing the module name of Text.Html. Ross suggests
> moving it to the network package - I'm abivalent about that. A
> completely separate package (html) would be fine by me.
I think that we should have one package that implements the real networking
(sockets, name resolving etc) and a separate package that manages various
network related data formats.
Having Network.HTML but Text.XML.* seems quite illogical.
> In reply to maeder: yes the package boundaries do reflect implementation
> dependencies. I don't think this is a big problem. In theory we could
> rename /everything/ in base to be PackageBase.* and then re-export the
> actual interfaces from a bunch of separate packages, but that doesn't
> really buy much, and it's a lot of work.
I think it would be nice to have implementation dependent code (GHC.*)
and implementation independent code in separate packages. Currently
there is no way to know whether a Cabal package depending on base
wants Data.List or GHC.Something.
- Einar Karttunen
More information about the Libraries