On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:58:49AM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Thus I applaud Michael Snoyman's quest to address the absense of a basic array type in the `base` library. Perhaps more users would stop abusing lists (memoisable iterators) as an indexed store.
Data.Array actually _was_ part of base-3.
However, I think we should split 'base' in more smaller parts rather than making it bigger.
FWIW, I don't think that splitting base into multiple libraries would achieves much, it would likely raise the cost of coordinating versioning. I do however agree that perhaps separating base from GHC could be a good idea, if GHC could ship a smaller foundational library with primops, ... and `base` evolved somewhat independently. However that too has potential drawbacks, because packages would be more likely to have non-overlapping version bounds on a separately evolving base... Probably manageable, but something to keep in mind. -- Viktor.