Haskell Platform proposal: Add the vector package

Thomas Schilling nominolo at googlemail.com
Sun Jul 15 17:11:46 CEST 2012

On 15 July 2012 14:53, Yitzchak Gale <gale at sefer.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Mark Lentczner
> <mark.lentczner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...I went back and looked
>> at Vector and now I see that there are large set of ".Safe" variants that
>> are no more than re-exports of the exact same functions from the non .Safe
>> versions of the modules with an extra safe haskell declaration added....
>> I think the state of affairs stinks. It will do nothing but confuse the heck
>> out of users
> Simon already pointed out that, in his opinion, the
> correct way to support SH would be:
>  - rename M to M.Internal (or suitable alternative)
>  - rename M.Safe to M
>  - add a (small) M.Unsafe where necessary
> But that would break backwards compatibility for the
> unsafe parts of the API. It's up to the package maintainers
> whether or not they want to do that. If not, I would say revert
> to no Safe Haskell support and accept it in the platform.
> However, add a haddock comment something like this:
> "Safe Haskell: If you do not use any functions in this
> module whose name contains the word 'unsafe', you
> can mark your module as 'Trustworthy'. Otherwise,
> please consult <Simon's SH paper>."

To be fair, regardless of SH, I'd consider it good API design to put
unsafe things into a separate module.  I'd be interested to know what
exactly the problem is with moving these functions into a separate
module.  If the only argument for not making this change is to avoid
breaking the API then we should do it *before* including vector into
the platform.

P.S.: I really wish we had a tool like "gofix" that automates trivial
API updates. That way simple API changes could be automated. There are
tools like this for Java and C, too.

More information about the Libraries mailing list