hello, Simon Marlow wrote:
When you take a top-level name for a library, the programmer is prevented from using that top-level name for modules in a program. I'd prefer to keep the top-level Monad name for monads in the current program, rather than a generic Monad library. this is a relevent point. i am not sure if it is a good idea to put all your monads in a monad directory, but i guess some programmers might want to do it. by the way i don't think this would be a problem if relative names were added to the module system, as a porgrammer could use an absolute name for the system library, and a relative name for the project monads. but we have already discussed that.
... So my vote goes to keeping the current Control.Monad name for the library. it seems that most people don't want the library in Monad.* so i guess we should keep it in Control.Monad.*. then the next question is when to replace the current library with the modified one. i am not sure of the user base of the monad library, but i would rather do it sooner than later. i guess i should point out that the "new" library is not much different from the old one, and with exception of resumptions and the instances for the Monad* classes for continuations added after another transformer things should work fine (those two were not in the previous library anyways). if we keep the library under Unstable*, i doubt that anyone would use it, and this will slow down tracking of bugs etc.
there is also the problem of it being available only from CVS. i could make a package available from my web-page (or some other page), but then it would clash with the library in base. do you think it would be a good idea to split it from the base package? base seems huge as it is already. bye iavor -- ================================================== | Iavor S. Diatchki, Ph.D. student | | Department of Computer Science and Engineering | | School of OGI at OHSU | | http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~diatchki | ==================================================