Haskell 2010 libraries

Edward Kmett ekmett at gmail.com
Fri Apr 30 10:38:51 EDT 2010

As the issue seems to be that neither base or haskell2010 subsume the other,
is it feasible to factor the overlapping fragment into something like a
base2010 package that base depends upon. That way importing base you get all
of the existing functionality, and then the haskell2010 package can depend
on base2010, so importing haskell2010, you also get exactly the subset of
functionality expected.

If you use both base and haskell2010, then the overlapping fragment is
included from the common sub-package. No new extensions are required.

The problem here is that it is a slippery slope (do we repeat this process
in 2011?) and base-internal/base2010 or whatever it should be called could
possibly behind the scenes rely on implementation details from other modules
in base, so the aforementioned refactoring could be difficult.

-Edward Kmett

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM, David Menendez <dave at zednenem.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Malcolm Wallace
> <malcolm.wallace at cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Because I suggest that "portablebase" re-export the "haskell2010" API in
> its
> > entirety, it would be impossible to use both packages explicitly at the
> same
> > time from a single module - users would need to choose one or the other.
> Is the idea that portablebase re-exports modules at the same name? If
> so, does Haskell2010 allow for package-qualified imports or would
> portablebase require extensions?
> --
> Dave Menendez <dave at zednenem.com>
> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/ <http://www.eyrie.org/%7Ezednenem/>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20100430/7e369b3a/attachment.html

More information about the Libraries mailing list