aeson and dlist in HP 2013.4.0.0
spam at scientician.net
Wed Nov 27 18:27:57 UTC 2013
On 2013-11-27 18:27, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Mark Lentczner <mark.lentczner at gmail.com>wrote:
>> 1) Aeson option 3 or 4 is desirable - we all want aeson, we don't want
>> 2) dlist has generated a fair bit of discussion, but no clear agreement.
>> 3) no one has weighed in on scientific
> I spent a bit of time digging into aeson's use of dlist this morning (I
> didn't add it myself, hence the need to dig), and it actually uses almost
> the entire API. I do not plan to duplicate dlist into aeson, so the
> remaining options are to bring dlist into the platform (which is fine by
> me), or omit aeson. The dlist package is somewhat widely used, and it's
> very stable, so I am unfussed about its inclusion.
I think the objection people have is that there are (were?) some
last-minute changes to dlist as indicated here:
I think many of the objections were raised before the details of the
changes were known, so meh.
+0, I guess. (I was one of the original objectors based on the
requirement for API stability before inclusion in the HP.)
> Regarding scientific, it solves a real problem with correctness in previous
> versions of aeson. It is admittedly both new and nichey, but I would be
> fine to see it go into the platform for the same reason we were okay
> including the primitive package. It is depended upon by both the latest or
> HEAD versions of attoparsec and aeson, so the option to fold its code into
> aeson doesn't really exist.
More information about the Libraries