[Haskell-cafe] Library Process (was Building "production stable" software in Haskell)

[Adrian Hey]

Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi
> 
>> What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
>> other compilers & interpreters?
> 
> Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
> being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
> FilePath and ByteString, both of which were obvious deficiencies in
> the libraries. I'm now not aware of any hole that is likely to get
> plugged by bundling an additional library.

There still seem to be plenty of holes left. (No "standard" Finite
Element Analysis or Digital Signal Processing libs for example.)

Or put another way, what is so important about the holes that are filled
by packages like GLUT,HGL,OpenGL,html,parsec,pretty,xhtml (to name a
few) that require "standard" library implementations.

>> Should
>> something experimental be a base package? And shouldn't all modules that are
>> base packages declare their status?
> 
> No, they should all be reasonably stable. Things that are unstable are
> likely to move out of the standard libraries and just become hackage
> packages.

Libs are not "standard" simply because they happen to be bundled with
ghc. And how is it that such unstable libs came to be bundled in the
first place, given the alleged superior stability and quality control

:-)

Regards
--
Adrian Hey