On 26.10 15:49, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Yes, if we were to not allow changing the exposed modules then people could achieve the same effect using CPP.
Can we agree at least on a subset of the functionality to make the simple cases work. It seems to me that there are two real design issues: * Should the clist/flist specification be a simple pure functional language *or* a constraint solving one. * How much should we try to protect users from evil package writers with wrong ideas how to package things. Personally I prefer functional semantics and keeping things simple rather than trying to limit the language because of the things package writers could do with it. A third issue is syntax - but this is not so important. All the ideas on the list have seemed fine, but if we go the functional way we could just make it a subset of Haskell with (==), (&&), (||), not, and Bool and String literals. - Einar Karttunen