base package

[Johan Tibell]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joachim Breitner
<mail at joachim-breitner.de>wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't know about entangled implementations. But I'd like to have a base
package (e.g. your base-pure) that has a consistent set of basic data types
e.g. Int, Word, Float, Double, Char, String, ByteString, Text, [a], Maybe,
Either, and so forth. These are logically at the same layer. I think
splitting them according to how they happen to be implemented at the moment
is a misstake. It would give us a illogical and unstable layering in the
long run.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20130222/5cbddceb/attachment.htm>