Would this include making those modules not hidden in ghc base? There’s been a few times where that status made it quite hard to build documentation for those modules!
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 1:16 PM Ben Gamari <b...@well-typed.com> wrote: > Laurent P. René de Cotret <laurent.decot...@outlook.com> writes: > > > Dear GHC developers, > > > > In recent weeks, John Ericson has fine-tuned a Haskell Foundation > > Technical Proposal to split `base` into two libraries: `ghc-base` and > > `base`, the latter simply re-exporting everything for `ghc-base` (for > > now). You can read about the rationale and specifics more in details > > in the proposal itself: > > https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/pull/47 > > > > Note that this proposal has recently been streamlined into a form > > which is more focused than its initial state, and might be worth a > > re-read. > > > > The Haskell Foundation Technical Working Group has reached a consensus > > that this work will benefit the Haskell community. Moreover, the > > Haskell Foundation has agreed to spend some of its resources to > > implement this proposal, which would start by ensuring the completion > > of MR7898 (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/7898). > > > > This work will affect GHC developers. Therefore, the Technical Working > > Group would like to get buy-in from the GHC developers before formally > > accepting this proposal. > > > Hi Laurent, > > In general I am quite supportive of this proposal. I have discussed the > idea with John on several occassions and agree that separating the > implementation of `base` from its user-facing interfaces with a package > boundary would simplify life for both users and GHC's maintainers (c.f. > [1]). > > I also threw together my own implementation of the idea in a few hours > some weeks back (having forgotten about John's effort); this can be > found in the wip/ghc-base branch [2]. From that experience I have no > doubts that this idea is feasible. The only issues that I am slightly > unsure of are: > > * whether/how to prevent `ghc-base` references from seeping into error > messages. > > * which interfaces should be re-exposed from `base`. In [2] we propose > that a fair number of interfaces be marked as GHC-internal. > Those which are marked [3] as "hidden" should likely be > exposed only via `ghc-base`. However, for compatibility reasons we > may decide to continue exporting some subset of "internal" modules > (with frozen export lists) from `base`. > > Regardless, I am very happy to see this split move forward and am > grateful to John for his work in this direction. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > > > [1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/issues/146 > [2] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/tree/wip/ghc-base > [3] > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WmyYLbJIMk9Q-vK4No5qvKIIdIZwhhFFlw6iVWd1xNQ/edit#gid=1315971213 > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs