What's the future of the haskellYYYY packages?

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Nov 11 17:50:07 CET 2011

On 11/11/2011 16:40, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>      Simon>  On 11/11/2011 15:06, Bas van Dijk wrote:
>>   I'm not sure to what extent we want to do this.  So far we've only had
>>   to copy a few individual functions and fix export lists.  The change
>>   to Num recently meant that we have diverged from Haskell 98 and
>>   Haskell 2010 in a fairly fundamental way, and to recover compatibility
>>   we would have to copy a lot of code into haskell98 and haskell2010.
> What's wrong with copying a lot of code? It's not code that's going to
> need maintenance is it?

I don't have a big problem with it, no.  It's just the time required to 
actually do it - depending on how deep the divergence is, you might have 
to pull a lot of the GHC.* modules in the base package over, and the 
intermodule dependencies can be quite tricky.  There are the lesser 
issues of the extra compile time and disk space for the duplicated 
library code too.

Also, the more copying you do, the less it becomes possible to have a 
program that consists of a combination of haskell2010 modules and 
modules that import the base package.  Essentially it becomes impossible 
to have libraries written in pure Haskell 2010.  Again, I don't know how 
much we care about that.


More information about the Libraries mailing list