ketil+haskell at ii.uib.no
Fri Mar 16 06:21:16 EDT 2007
Duncan Coutts wrote:
> But in general: so you could say that these bugs show we should have
> waited longer for the library to mature, on the other hand I rather
> suspect that we'd never have found these without the huge number of
> people using the lib that came from it being included as standard.
I certainly don't argue against bundling FPS (or any other package) with
GHC (or any other compiler), and I don't think Bulat (or anybody else)
is either. The problem is *packages*: we have a nice and flexible
infrastructure for manipulating these, but with the exception of 'base'.
When a library is in base, I can no longer depend on a particular
version, upgrade to current development version, experiement with
modifications, etc. With any other package, I can do so, and together
with darcs and cabal, lots of code is very accessible, with a relatively
smooth incline for getting gradually more involved. The 'base' package
has a much wider gap between consumers and developers.
To avoid confusion, could we use a separate term to describe required
bundled libraries, "core libraries" perhaps?
More information about the Libraries