Process issues (was Re: Lang)

Simon Marlow
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:54:25 -0000

> At 2001-03-13 09:04, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:18:32PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> >> Ok, I acknowledge that.  I think we seem to be gradually coming to
> >> a consensus on Marcin's point - that the functionality of a library
> >> should be paramount in the naming scheme, regardless of=20
> implementation,
> >> standardness, portability, etc.  This is good.
> >
> >With the exception of the Prelude, right?
> Is a Prelude even necessary? Might it not be better to import=20
> what you=20
> want explicitly?

In the long term, I think it would be a good idea to redesign the
Prelude to be more minimal.  But for the time being, we should provide
the Haskell98 Prelude exactly as-is but place it in the new namespace