Hi, Am Freitag, den 22.02.2013, 11:38 -0800 schrieb Johan Tibell:
In addition, I don't think we want to say that e.g. pure data structures can't depend on the FFI. While their current implementation might not use the FFI, what if we want to use it in the future. We'd have to reshuffle the packages again.
right, there is a tension between having just independent APIs and having also independent implementations. My main goal is to allow packages to specify their imports more precisely, to require less changes as not-so-common stuff in base evolves and to make it easier for alternative compiler/targets to implement parts of base; this would just require providing better grouped APIs. But if we want that while retaining the freedom to have an entangled implementation, we are back at the "large base + specific re-exporting packages" approach, which wasn’t particularly well received here. Greetings, Joachim PS: Even with the currently explored split stuff in base-pure can use the FFI; it could just not use the modules from the Foreign.* structure. This may or may not be a problem. It was for the GHC.Fingeprint implementation, as it was marshalling arrays. -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata