library reorganisation

[Einar Karttunen]

On 02.03 12:22, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I don't suggest changing the module name of Text.Html.  Ross suggests 
> moving it to the network package - I'm abivalent about that.  A 
> completely separate package (html) would be fine by me.

I think that we should have one package that implements the real networking
(sockets, name resolving etc) and a separate package that manages various
network related data formats.

Having Network.HTML but Text.XML.* seems quite illogical.

> In reply to maeder: yes the package boundaries do reflect implementation 
> dependencies.  I don't think this is a big problem.  In theory we could 
> rename /everything/ in base to be PackageBase.* and then re-export the 
> actual interfaces from a bunch of separate packages, but that doesn't 
> really buy much, and it's a lot of work.

I think it would be nice to have implementation dependent code (GHC.*)
and implementation independent code in separate packages. Currently
there is no way to know whether a Cabal package depending on base
wants Data.List or GHC.Something.

- Einar Karttunen