Proposal: reduce base from the top

Simon Marlow simonmarhaskell at
Wed Apr 4 06:39:02 EDT 2007

Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> This is an attempt to propose a set of changes that we could reasonably 
>> make in the GHC 6.8 timeframe, that would significantly reduce the size of 
>> base and give us more flexibility to independently develop packages.
>> [...]
>> Control.Applicative
>> Data.Foldable, Data.Traversable
>> Data.Map, Data.IntMap, Data.Set, Data.IntSet
>> Data.Sequence, Data.Tree
>> Data.HashTable
>> Data.Graph
>> ---> new package collections? containers?  or split further?
>>      (dep. on array, generics, concurrent)
> Data.HashTable (and thus Data.Array.*) is used in the implementation
> of Data.Typeable.  It also differs from the others in being a mutable
> data structure.  I imagine that without it this package wouldn't need to
> depend on array and concurrent.

Good point; I propose to leave Data.HashTable where it is for now.  It doesn't
depend on array, fortunately, becuase it uses the low-level IOArray, so this
won't prevent the array package from being split.

> Data.Monoid could possibly go here too.  Another possibility is to split
> the 4 class modules from the concrete data structures.

If the 4 class modules were in a separate package, any suggestions for naming?


More information about the Libraries mailing list