> NOTE:
> For now, I'm not going to apply the patch to the CVS tree... There are
> several reasons for it:
>
> * at first, as Sigbjorn pointed out, they are not covered by POSIX.1
> and therefore this DOES become a policy issue... I'd like to hear
> the opinion of The GHC Team (which is at ICFP currently, AFAIK)...
The Posix library is currently pretty pedantic about sticking to POSIX.1.
My personal opinion is that we should provide two interfaces: Posix which
only provides access to what you get from the C library if you #define
_POSIX_SOURCE_, and a superset interface which additionally provides some
common extensions (perhaps this should be in the form of a SUS (Single Unix
Specification) interface - but very few if any OSs actually support the full
SUS).
> * The Posix* modules are said to be rewritten once the new FFI has
> settled enough, so I don't want to spent too much time on them
> now...
Absolutely. The Posix library is long overdue for a rewrite/redesign (along
with the Socket libraries, which I've already started on). Marcin has
expressed some interest in helping out here.
> * I added instances (Enum, Bounded, Eq) to BaudRate. Sure, I could do
> without them, but they're nevertheless useful... but this is an
> incompatible change, it *might* break existing code...
>
> BTW: Is there any particular reason, why the other Posix* data
> types lack these instances? At least Eq should be supported,
> IMHO...
Yes, these classes should be added - we'll bear it in mind for the rewrite.
Cheers,
Simon
