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

Johan Tibell johan.tibell at
Wed Jul 11 23:45:36 CEST 2012

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at> wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 20:49, Henning Thielemann <lemming at> 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:

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

-- Johan

More information about the Libraries mailing list