safe vs. unsafe (Was: Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package)

[Johan Tibell]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 20:49, Henning Thielemann <lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
>> I think the idea was to have Unsafe modules and move the unsafe functions
>> there. :-)
>
> Indeed. I don't see the point about having .Safe modules. Modules
> should be safe by default as you mentioned before. I guess the reason
> we have .Safe modules in base and vector is for backwards
> compatibility.
>
> The ideal, but currently, impossible way of dealing with this is to
> mark the _export_ of unsafe functions in a module as DEPRECATED and in
> a later version remove the unsafe functions and mark the module as
> Trustworthy. However this requires support for deprecating exports:
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4879

But why? The number of people who will benefit from this mass
deprecation/mass migration is tiny.

-- Johan