Whither split base?

[Edward Kmett]

Now that we have backpack which gives us 'reexported-modules:' perhaps a
better plan for a split-base would be rather to leave base monolithic, with
its current API, but instead eyeball having it re-export most if not all of
itself from smaller split-base components?

I'm mostly interested in foundational wins where splitting things up
enables us to run in more places because you have to port fewer parts, and
less about wins that we get from splintering off small but completely pure
haskell components like the 'printf', but I can well understand how these
concerns get conflated.

Then Herbert's (valid) objection about needless breakage is addressed and
it still provides a roadmap to a finer-grained dependency set nonetheless.

-Edward

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:32 AM Daniel Cartwright <chessai1996 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> DOA seems kinda harsh at this point. If base just re-exports the stuff,
> that makes sense, but wouldn't we want to move it out eventually?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 11:29 AM Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://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/b6917ddb/attachment.html>