Hi, Am Montag, den 15.07.2013, 18:22 +0200 schrieb Henning Thielemann:
How is your proposal related to your SplitBase effort: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/SplitBase
I wouldn’t call it “my” effort; I was just joining an existing discussion and tried to add more concrete data points to it. The relation is that a base-5 api package would help us achieve Goal 1 (fewer version bumps), Goal 4, Goal 5, and help a bit with Goal 3 (as defined on the wiki page). It does not directly help with Goal 2, but it set a precedent and maybe make a, say, base-pure API package which re-exports only non-IO modules more likely to be used. Also the mentioned extension to the GHC package system (module re-exports) helps in that way. Or put differently: Instead of deciding between the two approaches listes on the wiki page, we use approach (A) to make (B) possible. Am Montag, den 15.07.2013, 19:07 +0200 schrieb Henning Thielemann: If you want to make your package
available for more compilers you have to provide a different Build-Depends list for every compiler you want to support. It would be cool to have packages that are warrantedly free of IO, in order to run them in environments where no IO is allowed (e.g. a web-server running submitted Haskell code). (The only objection I have, is to call a package without IO "pure-base", because IO is also purely functional in Haskell.)
precisely. The base package that this proposal talks about does not do that, but it shows the way, and the introduction for a base-“pure” would then be easily possible and non-intrusive (besides the question of where the Prelude lives, but lets keep that discussion separate). Do you have a suggestion for a better name than pure-base? pure-unreal-world, as there is no notion of the RealWorld# state token ;-)? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org