> That sounds reasonable. If someone sends a pull request Lennart or I will > review and merge it.
Doesn't binary already have it? http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/binary/0.6.4.0/doc/html/Data-Binary.html#g:3 On 26 February 2013 05:06, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Alexander Solla <alex.so...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There are some blog posts and comments out there about merging cereal >>>> and binary, is this what's the goal/going on (cfr runGetIncremental)? >>> >>> >>> It's most definitely the goal and it's basically done. The only thing I >>> don't think we'll adopt from cereal is the instances from container types. >> >> >> Why not? Those instances are useful. Without instances defined in >> binary/cereal, pretty much every Happstack (or, better said, every >> ixset/acidstate/safecopy stack) user will have to have orphan instances. > > > I will have to give a bit more context to answer this one. After the binary > package was created we've realized that it should really have been two > packages: > > * One package for serialization and deserialization of basic types, that > have a well-defined serialization format even outside the package e.g. > little and big endian integers, IEEE floats, etc. This package would > correspond to Data.Binary.Get, Data.Binary.Builder, and Data.Binary.Put. > > * One package that defines a particular binary format useful for > serializing arbitrary Haskell values. This package would correspond to > Data.Binary. > > For the latter we need to decide what guarantees we make. For example, is > the format stable between releases? Is the format public (such that other > libraries can parse the output of binary)? Right now these two questions are > left unanswered in both binary and cereal, making those packages less > useful. > > Before we answer those questions we don't want to 1) add more dependencies > to binary and 2) define serialization formats that we might break in the > next release. > > So perhaps once we've settled these issues we'll include instances for > containers. > >> Also, cereal has a generic instance. Will the new binary? > > > That sounds reasonable. If someone sends a pull request Lennart or I will > review and merge it. > > -- Johan > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Alexander _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
