On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm mainly concerned with projecting a consistent picture in the Report, so as not to mislead or confuse people. Here are the options I can see:
2. Just drop the obvious candidates (Time, Random, CPUTime, Locale, Complex?), leaving the others.
3. Update the libraries to match what we have at the moment. e.g. rename List to Data.List, and add the handful of functions that have since been added to Data.List. One problem with this is that these modules are then tied to the language definition, and can't be changed through the usual library proposal process. Also it would seem slightly strange to have a seemingly random set of library modules in the report.
Another thing we can do here is specify that the contents of these modules is a minimum and not a maximum, allowing additions through the usual library proposal process.
4. Combine 2 and 3: drop some, rename the rest.
I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded. Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and rename them to use the new hierarchical module names.
Oh and additionally include the FFI modules under their new names. Duncan