On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> Most people won't care and will continue to depend on enough to get
> Prelude.
>
Let me just put this out here so keep it in the back of our heads: most
people don't care about this whole thing (splitting base) so lets make sure
there's
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.03.2013, 14:04 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> Your follow-on remarks (appended below) about which implicit Prelude
> you get if you (say) import only `base-pure` are well-taken, but they
> apply equally to (B). Worth adding a section to the Wiki page to
> discuss this
| > In short, less of an either/or, more of a both/and.
|
| from reading between the lines I get the impression that you’d prefer
| (A) to happen first, in order to do (B) more easily. If (A) was
| successful, we even have to worry less about bad decisions while doing
| (B), as it would be relativ
On 13-03-12 04:47 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
...
None of these look particularly appealing. Here some ideas to make it
more convenient for the programmer that require changes to GHC and how
it treats packages:
I. It automatically imports _all_ visible Prelude modules. So
base-pur
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:58:28PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> Both have issues: Putting it in file-io will cause everyone to depend on
> file-io
If it ended up there, then we'd presumably encourage people to use
NoImplicitPrelude and import e.g. list functions from Data.List rather
than P
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 12.03.2013, 14:35 + schrieb Ian Lynagh:
> I think we should avoid getting bogged down in one small detail at this
> stage. If we make the bulk of the changes now then we still have a few
> months to polish the result before it gets effectively frozen by being
> released.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:47:21AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> This is especially true when the shim packages are less simple to use,
> due to the handling of Prelude.
Just to make sure I am following you, I think you are saying:
Everything would work fine if there was a Prelude in base (
Hi,
Am Montag, den 11.03.2013, 23:45 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> | I don’t feel in the position to actually make a call here, or even to cast
> a vote with
> | confidence, but I’m happy to continue summarizing the discussion until a
> | consensus is found. If there is more discussion,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> B Better for internal implementation (eg using containers or bytestring in
> base)
>
Note that this also means better code for external clients, as we can offer
e.g. a better System.IO that lets people use Handles to read Text and
ByteS
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org
[mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
| Sent: 07 March 2013 20:22
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: base package -- goals
|
| Hi,
|
| Am Die
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 26.02.2013, 10:08 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> I think it would be vv helpful to have all these goals articulated on
> the wiki page.
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SplitBase
>
well, all the goals are there (or are they not sufficiently well
ex
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:54:35PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 25/02/13 18:05, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >
> >Personally, I don't think the language report should be specifying the
> >content of libraries at all,
>
> It's not that straightforward, because the language report refers to
> various libr
On 25/02/13 19:25, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi all,
Let me add the goals I had in mind last time I considered trying to
split base.
1. I'd like to have text Handles use the Text type and binary Handles
use the ByteString type. Right now we have this somewhat awkward setup
where the I/O APIs are sp
On 25/02/13 18:05, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Ian Lynagh writes:
[...]
If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which
is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed
(or miss out on any
and whose version number changes
seldom, would not do the job.
Simon
From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 February 2013 19:25
To: Joachim Breitner
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org; Simon Peyton-Jones
Subject: Re: base package -- goals
Hi all,
Let me add the goals
Hi,
Am Montag, den 25.02.2013, 11:25 -0800 schrieb Johan Tibell:
> 1. I'd like to have text Handles use the Text type and binary Handles
> use the ByteString type. Right now we have this somewhat awkward setup
> where the I/O APIs are spread out and bundled with pure types.
> Splitting base would
Hi all,
Let me add the goals I had in mind last time I considered trying to split
base.
1. I'd like to have text Handles use the Text type and binary Handles use
the ByteString type. Right now we have this somewhat awkward setup where
the I/O APIs are spread out and bundled with pure types. Spli
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Ian Lynagh writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which
> > is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed
> > (or miss out on any improvements that we
Ian Lynagh writes:
[...]
> If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which
> is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed
> (or miss out on any improvements that were made).
...wouldn't there also be the danger of type(class)-incompatible
(e.g. the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:29:42AM -0500, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> Somebody claiming to be Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >>In any case there is still the problem: What and where is the Prelude...
> >>but maybe let’s postpone this.
> >
>
Somebody claiming to be Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Stephen Paul Weber [2013-02-25 11:29:42-0500]
Why shouldn't Prelude (and other really stable, standard modules)
just live in the `haskell2010` package?
Because then we can't make changes to it without producing a new
language standard.
That s
* Stephen Paul Weber [2013-02-25 11:29:42-0500]
> Why shouldn't Prelude (and other really stable, standard modules)
> just live in the `haskell2010` package?
Because then we can't make changes to it without producing a new
language standard.
Roman
___
Somebody claiming to be Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
In any case there is still the problem: What and where is the Prelude...
but maybe let’s postpone this.
I'd put it in its own package for now, and then look at whether/what it
should be
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:31:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> Hopefully the problem here (often-changing base) is big enough and the
> alternative (more purpose-oriented and more stable) packages are
> attractive enough to make people use the new set.
I'm pretty confident that most packag
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:25:03PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | I added a Goals section to
> | http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SplitBase
>
> Thanks. But the first goal, which is the dominant one, is very unclear to me
> as my comments mentioned. A description of what the proble
, would be useful.
SImon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
| users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
| Sent: 25 February 2013 13:32
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: base package -- goa
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 23.02.2013, 10:27 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> I’d like to be very clear about goals, though. I have not been
> following this thread closely enough, but is there a Wiki page that
> explains what the goals of the base-package break-up is?
I added a Goals section to
h
27 matches
Mail list logo
