Summary of progress

[Malcolm Wallace]

I think this would be a useful point to stand back and
summarise where we seem to have reached in discussing
my original proposals (posted on 26th February).  Shout
if you think I've got something wrong here, missed
something important out, or if I mark something as
'decided' that you really want to discuss some more.

Proposal 1: introduce nested namespaces.

  * Everyone seems to agree that this is a good idea.
  * No-one has objected to using the normal dot (.) as
    the namespace separator character, nor has anyone
    suggested a different character.
  * The idea of an implicit import-renaming clause
            import A.B.C.D [ as D ]
    received no objections, although some people would
    like there to be additional implicit renamings
            import A.B.C.D [ as C.D ]
            import A.B.C.D [ as B.C.D ]
  * The original proposal allowed only absolute naming
    of modules.  Others have proposed an additional
    mechanism for relative naming of modules within the
    current (or parent) namespace.  I don't see agreement
    here yet.

Proposal 2a: adopt a standardised namespace layout

  * Again, people seem to agree broadly that this is an
    essential thing.  Discussions are still in progress
    about the detail of the layout, and I expect these
    to continue.

Proposal 2b: adopt a "Std." namespace for libraries that
             are common to all implementations.

  * There is little agreement here.  Simon M, Manuel, and
    others have expressed their doubts that it is workable.
    No-one has defended the idea except me.  But then Simon
    posted a hierarchy layout proposal in which "Haskell."
    seemed to take the role of "Std.".  So I'm a bit
    confused.  I'd like to see some more discussion about
    this.

Proposal 3: develop a social process for adding new libraries
            to the "standard" set.

  * Well, this list is the starting point, so there's not
    much more to be said on that.
  * The set of criteria by which we as a community might
    judge whether a library is recognised as "standard"
    have not really received any comment.

Other issues:

  * We have mentioned briefly that "standard" libraries
    should be available in all Haskell systems.  But Manuel
    pointed out that many libraries will be developed
    independently of particular compilers - and so they
    should be distributed separately, to ensure they remain
    up-to-date with external software (e.g. C libraries).
    I think we need to think carefully about how to manage
    this process.  A single repository of compiler-independent
    and build-system-independent library code would be a
    good start.  But it won't be sufficient.

Regards,
    Malcolm