Indeed type safety is exactly what it’s for! The other notions of safety
were never part of the goals. And it was designed so that the end user
could decide which codes they deem trustworthy.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM davean
The only part of Safe Haskell I ever really cared about was type safety. That's what matters, I think.
I've wanted to use it a number of times and played with it, but it's never actually managed to become an important part of anything for me. So take that as you will. I'd love it if it worked well, its issues have limited what I attempt, but at the end of the day it's never hurt me too bad to not have it.
-davean
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 7:14 AM Tom Ellis < tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:33:04PM -0700, Chris Smith wrote:
This conversation reminds me of a parable I encountered somewhere, in which someone declares "I don't understand why this decision was ever made, and I we should change it", and someone responds, "No, if you don't understand the decision was made, then you don't know enough to change it. If you learn why it was decided that way in the first place, then you will have the understanding to decide whether to change it."
That parable is Chesterton's fence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs