Drastic Prelude changes imminent

[Greg Weber]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Mikolaj Konarski <mikolaj at well-typed.com>
wrote:

> > None of these rhetorical questions are satisfactory.
> > I understand the need to iterate on a design and start with a vague
> > specification.
> > But by the time something concrete is figured out, it should be
> explained.
> > Explaining the iteration process with a few of the code examples would
> > answer a lot of the questions here.
> > In the end, the changes have been explained many times over now, just not
> > coherently in one place.
>
> Greg, if that ticket was (it almost is:) a wiki page, would that be
> satisfactory?
>
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9586
>
>
Perhaps, if the discussion on the ticket was summarized into an
explantation. But it is too much to wade through right now.


> I assume it wasn't linked to and advertised enough.
> Where would we need to link to it, how often (e.g., after each
> major commit?) and what modifications would be necessary,
> if it's not clear enough?
>

At some point a link to the proposal would need to appear in the mail list.
Updating as iteration occurs is a good question. That is going to end up
being a judgement call. Every time there is a major change or decision,
particularly among alternatives that cause breakage, it would be good to
mention it on the mail list. I would imagine that ended up happening a few
times in this case.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150127/ce3e1ea1/attachment.html>