Lang. (was Re: Alternative hierarchy proposal)

Simon Marlow
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:53:27 -0000

> I tend to agree with this.  The functionality should be primary in
> any naming scheme.  The third category (magic required) can also
> (sometimes) be important to an end-user - they need to know whether
> a library can be used portably across compilers, but that is all.
> I guess we might therefore want to consider moving Foreign from
>     Haskell.Extensions.Foreign
> to
>     Haskell.Foreign
> whilst keeping (for instance)
>     Haskell.Extensions.Concurrent
> where it is, because it is only available in ghc.  Or come to that,
> maybe the latter really belongs in
>     GHC.Concurrent

Actually Hugs has a portable implementation of Concurrent, which nhc
could use too.  You only need runtime system support if you plan to
implement preemptive scheduling, which isn't a requirement for the
Concurrent library, although it may be a requirement for certain