Buy-in for technical proposal 47 which affect GHC devs
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Tue Mar 21 21:55:45 UTC 2023
Would this include making those modules not hidden in ghc base? There’s
been a few times where that status made it quite hard to build
documentation for those modules!
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 1:16 PM Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> wrote:
> Laurent P. René de Cotret <laurent.decotret at outlook.com> writes:
> > Dear GHC developers,
> > In recent weeks, John Ericson has fine-tuned a Haskell Foundation
> > Technical Proposal to split `base` into two libraries: `ghc-base` and
> > `base`, the latter simply re-exporting everything for `ghc-base` (for
> > now). You can read about the rationale and specifics more in details
> > in the proposal itself:
> > https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/pull/47
> > Note that this proposal has recently been streamlined into a form
> > which is more focused than its initial state, and might be worth a
> > re-read.
> > The Haskell Foundation Technical Working Group has reached a consensus
> > that this work will benefit the Haskell community. Moreover, the
> > Haskell Foundation has agreed to spend some of its resources to
> > implement this proposal, which would start by ensuring the completion
> > of MR7898 (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/7898).
> > This work will affect GHC developers. Therefore, the Technical Working
> > Group would like to get buy-in from the GHC developers before formally
> > accepting this proposal.
> Hi Laurent,
> In general I am quite supportive of this proposal. I have discussed the
> idea with John on several occassions and agree that separating the
> implementation of `base` from its user-facing interfaces with a package
> boundary would simplify life for both users and GHC's maintainers (c.f.
> I also threw together my own implementation of the idea in a few hours
> some weeks back (having forgotten about John's effort); this can be
> found in the wip/ghc-base branch . From that experience I have no
> doubts that this idea is feasible. The only issues that I am slightly
> unsure of are:
> * whether/how to prevent `ghc-base` references from seeping into error
> * which interfaces should be re-exposed from `base`. In  we propose
> that a fair number of interfaces be marked as GHC-internal.
> Those which are marked  as "hidden" should likely be
> exposed only via `ghc-base`. However, for compatibility reasons we
> may decide to continue exporting some subset of "internal" modules
> (with frozen export lists) from `base`.
> Regardless, I am very happy to see this split move forward and am
> grateful to John for his work in this direction.
> - Ben
>  https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/issues/146
>  https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/tree/wip/ghc-base
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs