Re: Abstract FilePath Proposal

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:

Regarding underspecified: I think that's appropriate at this phase. The main proposal is: maybe FilePath an abstract type. It will take multiple GHC releases before we switch over fully, with plenty of time to hash out details of how the filepath package should work, and the opportunity to experiment with different wrappers around a core abstract type.

But changing the semantics of an established newtype is very tricky business, since the resulting breakage won't be indicated by the types!

Having used an alternate FilePath type for a while (via system-filepath), I can say that it doesn't give the same benefit of just fixing the central FilePath type. Having to convert between types all over the place is tedious, defeats a lot of the performance benefits we're going for, and hurts type safety.

Why would you have to convert 'all over the place'? If the alternative library also provides the basic IO functions, the only places you'd have to convert are interfaces with other libraries, and things from e.g. config file, both of which don't happen a lot.

As someone who typically is very much opposed to breaking changes in core libraries: I think this one is well worth it.

Do you have any insight in the amount of breakage this will cause? I have a gut feeling that it's a lot more than any of the previous changes we've had, and those have already caused a lot of grumbling. But the only way to be sure is to run the builds on hackage (or stackage, but that's a smaller sample size). Erik

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM Erik Hesselink wrote:

...

I think this proposal is currently underspecified. For example, it's not clear to me what the semantics of a FilePath are. I have the feeling that `toFilePah` should return a Maybe, for example, but it's hard to say without knowing what it's converting to, exactly.

I also worry about the immense breakage this will cause. This is not just an issue of causing a lot of work for maintainers, but also of lots of unmaintained libraries, printed code etc breaking. I feel that there is not enough gain in this proposal relative to the amount of breakage.

Has any thought been given to introduce new modules for this type, and leave the old ones in place?

Erik

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hello *,

What? =====

We (see From: & CC: headers) propose, plain and simple, to turn the currently defined type-synonym

type FilePath = String

into an abstract/opaque data type instead.

Why/How/When? =============

For details (including motivation and a suggested transition scheme) please consult

https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal/AbstractFilePath

Suggested discussion period: 4 weeks -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVjXkZAAoJELo8uj/+IrV0WXUP/0romoKazwLbQpaMAKgCNZon BsY8Di44w6rkbdBXoky0xZooII8LJJyQfexH0BLRYEVLZFy0+LB8XzpPt8Ekg526 YlY4x0qFm9oiJbJDMqHUnb6z6Lr2KxzBcV37drTPbltUA+HB49DUVkkPbvHimpL2 28SIyhAr4fN6fLpGcFAkv6Rcs0mkvnTp7vsC0HNyshmGi6qQ+C+eB4mklQzWOPcn koHZ2wtI8AJmyTdHKcXKAIFM0r+xl4MJ5445IvDjvIuGXZCzybXMw9Ss/4wSG3VN qSIJVEDGZXrBCc12fPxPEB0Bqx9MIVytjplXKIo8rFrk93h3at9t9kDM26z+9PZ5 KYnEdjRKF4KL4j+3xqJDOEJT15GVRbGRRzb9A8xH0YIQ0S3Q3pt1PAfla1Hss75+ NRQgfowZYryL9dfCkAj2XNfdQ+pUk25N3bNig11se+zjk2JO77QRM0u3GOYZ9+CU tSlwhtIMF32xnjgQyWE5yBBiEg3/Y+S+809tVaPseUEzkQJXMGq5TFxBrN6bj1Vm awr6QghThKjeoRwky5bmFn/gept/lbYN6VV5B6gNznGP5xgFrmvVtmjbQJBRMYCv aEUnrYqxkkbIddJjD5gl771/LWH4M2F1yBgJjfiZw2paEVAXKxEr327LsbOQaPdb HjIPRrJbVK9AABo4AZ/Y =lg0o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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