This discussion has sparked a question in my mind: What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and other compilers & interpreters? I thought the master plan was that less would come with the compiler / interpreter and the user would install packages using cabal. I was thus mildly surprised earlier this year to find e.g. data.bytestring was included with ghc. Now that I look at the haddock, it says this is a base package but doesn't say anything about its status. On the other hand, there are lots of modules that are base packages that are experimental. Should something experimental be a base package? And shouldn't all modules that are base packages declare their status? Perhaps these are questions for the libraries mailing list but I thought I'd start here. Yours confused of Kingston.