Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Ganesh,
Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:59:00 AM, you wrote:
I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude) under the prefix Haskell2010. or similar? Most of it could be implemented by just re-exporting things from the "real" libraries.
we already have PvP mechanism for these things
The PvP isn't (proposed as) part of the standard, and without package qualified imports as implemented by GHC, it wouldn't help anyway.
but package versioning implemented by ghc, hugs and probably other compilers.
Do you mean the syntax that allows modules to be imported from a specified package? If so I didn't realise this was implemented by anything more than GHC.
with your idea we will have two things that address the same problem,
Arguably it is the ability to import from a specified package that duplicates the disambiguation mechanism provided by module names.
and these will be miltiplied - i.e. we will carry several versions of base package, each having Haskell2010.*, Haskell2011.* and so on modules
I'd expect the Haskell2010.* etc to be implemented in a haskell2010 package which depends on the relevant version of base. Obviously it would need to be updated when base was changed incompatibly. Having a library standard implies that implementations must support it for some period of time. I don't see why namespacing the libraries of that standard makes that any harder. Cheers, Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================