Whither split base?

[Carter Schonwald]

Yeah

The point ofnsplit base as an idea or goal is to make base simply reexport
stuff.  Not to drop it off the base/face of the earth.

This proposal is DOA.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:03 AM Vanessa McHale <vanessa.mchale at iohk.io>
wrote:

> Saying "people shouldn't be using this API in library code" seems like a
> poor reason to potentially break (working?) packages downstream.
> On 10/30/18 7:42 AM, Andrew Martin wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing listLibraries at haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20181030/ff8555be/attachment.html>