base package

Joachim Breitner mail at
Sat Feb 23 00:34:44 CET 2013


Am Freitag, den 22.02.2013, 11:38 -0800 schrieb Johan Tibell:
> In addition, I don't think we want to say that e.g. pure data
> structures can't depend on the FFI. While their current implementation
> might not use the FFI, what if we want to use it in the future. We'd
> have to reshuffle the packages again.

right, there is a tension between having just independent APIs and
having also independent implementations. My main goal is to allow
packages to specify their imports more precisely, to require less
changes as not-so-common stuff in base evolves and to make it easier for
alternative compiler/targets to implement parts of base; this would just
require providing better grouped APIs.

But if we want that while retaining the freedom to have an entangled
implementation, we are back at the "large base + specific re-exporting
packages" approach, which wasn’t particularly well received here.


PS: Even with the currently explored split stuff in base-pure can use
the FFI; it could just not use the modules from the Foreign.* structure.
This may or may not be a problem. It was for the GHC.Fingeprint
implementation, as it was marshalling arrays.

Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata at | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata at |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list