Haskell 2010: libraries

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Mon Jul 13 16:59:35 EDT 2009

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > I'm mainly concerned with projecting a consistent picture in the Report, 
> > so as not to mislead or confuse people.  Here are the options I can see:
> >   2. Just drop the obvious candidates (Time, Random, CPUTime,
> >      Locale, Complex?), leaving the others.
> > 
> >   3. Update the libraries to match what we have at the moment.
> >      e.g. rename List to Data.List, and add the handful of
> >      functions that have since been added to Data.List.  One
> >      problem with this is that these modules are then tied to
> >      the language definition, and can't be changed through
> >      the usual library proposal process.  Also it would seem
> >      slightly strange to have a seemingly random set
> >      of library modules in the report.

Another thing we can do here is specify that the contents of these
modules is a minimum and not a maximum, allowing additions through the
usual library proposal process.

> >   4. Combine 2 and 3: drop some, rename the rest.
> I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded.
> Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and
> rename them to use the new hierarchical module names.

Oh and additionally include the FFI modules under their new names.


More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list