Haskell 2010: libraries
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Fri Jul 10 19:01:52 EDT 2009
> 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
>>> 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