Duncan Coutts wrote:
But in general: so you could say that these bugs show we should have waited longer for the library to mature, on the other hand I rather suspect that we'd never have found these without the huge number of people using the lib that came from it being included as standard.
I certainly don't argue against bundling FPS (or any other package) with GHC (or any other compiler), and I don't think Bulat (or anybody else) is either. The problem is *packages*: we have a nice and flexible infrastructure for manipulating these, but with the exception of 'base'. When a library is in base, I can no longer depend on a particular version, upgrade to current development version, experiement with modifications, etc. With any other package, I can do so, and together with darcs and cabal, lots of code is very accessible, with a relatively smooth incline for getting gradually more involved. The 'base' package has a much wider gap between consumers and developers. To avoid confusion, could we use a separate term to describe required bundled libraries, "core libraries" perhaps? -k