Whither split base?

[Andrew Martin]

The benefit is certainly small, and it probably would discourage using the
API. I don't think that the migration path would be tricky. The new package
would just reexport Text.Printf when built with base < 4.13, and it would
define it when built with base >= 4.13. All that is required is a
build-depends line. However, people really shouldn't be using this API in
library code. Other modules in base provide more efficient and more
type-safe ways handle most of the situations I've seen this used for.

I've never used System.Console.GetOpt (I'm typically use
optparse-applicative for option parsing), but yes, I think that would also
be a good candidate. Since there are multiple competing approach for
argument parsing in the haskell ecosystem, my preference would be to avoid
blessing any of them with inclusion in base.

I don't feel particularly strongly about either of these, but their
position in base feels odd. They both feel like the result of applying a
"batteries included" mindset to a standard library that has by and large
refrained from including batteries.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:17 AM Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On 2018-10-30 at 08:04:59 -0400, Andrew Martin wrote:
> > Here's an idea for this I had last night. It's narrowly scoped, but I
> think
> > it moves us a tiny bit in the right direction. We could move Text.Printf
> > out of base and into its own library. This doesn't really belong in base.
> > The interface it provides it somewhat opinionated, and it's not even
> > type-safe. The new library could be named `printf` and could live under
> the
> > haskell github organization. Any thoughts for or against?
>
> Ok, but what does this effectively achieve?
>
> Text.Printf is an API that has been extremely stable and doesn't
> significant evolve anymore; I don't think it has contributed to major
> ver bumps in recent times, nor is it likely to. So I don't see much of a
> compelling benefit in doing so. The effect I'd expect if we do this is
> that `Text.Printf` will be reached for less (which some might argue to
> be a desirable effect -- but you're effectively pushing this API to a
> path of slow legacy death due to reduced discoverability, IMO), as the
> convenience of using it is reduced by requiring adding and maintaining
> an additional `build-depends` line to your package descriptions, as well
> as having to deal with the subtly tricky business of handling the
> migration path pre/post-split (c.f. the `network-bsd` split currently
> being in progress).
>
> Btw, a related extremely stable API in base I could think of which
> people might argue doesn't belong into `base` either is maybe
> `System.Console.GetOpt`; would you argue to split that off as well?
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>


-- 
-Andrew Thaddeus Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20181030/f54bb87b/attachment.html>