Proposal: Add the unordered-containers package and the hashable package to the Haskell Platform

[Jason Dusek]

2013/3/19 Thomas Schilling <nominolo at googlemail.com>:
> Oh, I just realised that this proposal is to include the older version
> of hashable.  In principle, I'm not against that, but I do wonder what
> the upgrade path is.  I don't think the performance problems can be
> fixed in general -- that's just the price of security.  So it becomes
> critical what the upgrade path looks like.  Do users get a slowdown of
> 2x by default and then have to manually make it faster again if
> something is not security sensitive?  Do users have to explicitly opt
> in for security (a bad default, IMO)?  Do we have any idea how that
> switch may affect the API?

It seems reasonable for the secure algorithm to be handled with
something explicit -- a newtype, a `secureHash' function -- so
that a developer has real confidence that it's being used. What
if the default changes back?

--
Jason Dusek
pgp // solidsnack // C1EBC57DC55144F35460C8DF1FD4C6C1FED18A2B