Haskell 2010: libraries

Manuel M T Chakravarty chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Fri Jul 10 19:01:52 EDT 2009

Simon Marlow:
> On 08/07/2009 22:45, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:09:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>  1. Just drop the whole libraries section from the report.  The
>>>     Report will still define the Prelude, however.
>>> I'm tending towards (1), mainly because it provides a clean break  
>>> and is
>>> likely to be the least confusing for users: they have one place to  
>>> go
>>> looking for library documentation.
>> Sounds good to me.
>> See also http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/118
> Ian, would you like to take ownership for this proposal, and start  
> fleshing out the details in a wiki page?
> There seems to be support for removing all the libraries in the  
> report.  Whether the report also blesses either the Haskell Platform  
> or a set of packages is a separate matter; either way, we still have  
> to extract the existing libraries from the report, and there will be  
> a set of changes to the report necessary to make that happen.  The  
> Report should explicitly list all the library entities that it  
> refers to.

I don't mind defining libraries separately, but not defining them at  
all is problematic unless a core set of libraries isn't rigorously  
defined somewhere else.


More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list