ekarttun at cs.helsinki.fi
Sun Oct 29 03:55:12 EST 2006
On 26.10 15:49, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Yes, if we were to not allow changing the exposed modules then people
> could achieve the same effect using CPP.
Can we agree at least on a subset of the functionality to make the
simple cases work. It seems to me that there are two real design
* Should the clist/flist specification be a simple pure functional
language *or* a constraint solving one.
* How much should we try to protect users from evil package writers
with wrong ideas how to package things.
Personally I prefer functional semantics and keeping things simple
rather than trying to limit the language because of the things
package writers could do with it.
A third issue is syntax - but this is not so important. All the ideas
on the list have seemed fine, but if we go the functional way we could
just make it a subset of Haskell with (==), (&&), (||), not, and Bool
and String literals.
- Einar Karttunen
More information about the cabal-devel