Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:56:50PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: >> >> I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded. >> Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and >> rename them to use the new hierarchical module names. >> > > We've been fortunate recently that, because the hierarchical modules > haven't been in the standard, we've been able to extend and improve > them without breaking compatibility with the language definition. In > some cases, such as the changes to how exceptions work, we haven't > had this freedom as the relevant functions are exposed by the > Prelude, and that has been causing us grief for years.
I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude) under the prefix Haskell2010. or similar? Most of it could be implemented by just re-exporting things from the "real" libraries. Clearly there is the downside that this will be rather verbose, but it should minimise the constraints placed on the faster moving libraries that most people use while still providing a properly standardised and stable set of code. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
