Hi, Am Freitag, den 22.02.2013, 11:38 -0800 schrieb Johan Tibell: > In addition, I don't think we want to say that e.g. pure data > structures can't depend on the FFI. While their current implementation > might not use the FFI, what if we want to use it in the future. We'd > have to reshuffle the packages again.
right, there is a tension between having just independent APIs and having also independent implementations. My main goal is to allow packages to specify their imports more precisely, to require less changes as not-so-common stuff in base evolves and to make it easier for alternative compiler/targets to implement parts of base; this would just require providing better grouped APIs. But if we want that while retaining the freedom to have an entangled implementation, we are back at the "large base + specific re-exporting packages" approach, which wasn’t particularly well received here. Greetings, Joachim PS: Even with the currently explored split stuff in base-pure can use the FFI; it could just not use the modules from the Foreign.* structure. This may or may not be a problem. It was for the GHC.Fingeprint implementation, as it was marshalling arrays. -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users