On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Gershom B
Better perhaps to do something like the following:
"The core libraries are a subset of the packages in the Haskell Platform. Many core libraries define basic APIs that are expected to be available in any Haskell implementation. A second set of core libraries are coupled tightly to the Glasgow Haskell Compiler but nonetheless managed through the core libraries process, as they are considered core functionality in the GHC Haskell ecosystem.”
Additionally, the libraries committee may want to more explicitly seperate the two lists? If we do ever have a new libraries section of a Haskell report, I imagine, e.g. it may well mention directory and process, but not ‘ghc-prim’.
I would argue that implementation specific libraries do not belong in the core libraries list. Instead, perhaps the libraries committee should state two functions: maintaining the core libraries list, and acting as the community interface/liaison for libraries specific to implementations. The implementations themselves should (and indeed must) maintain their implementation libraries lists; but to the extent that the community affects and is affected by these lists, the libraries committee is empowered to act on behalf of the community. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net