Hello Simon, Monday, March 13, 2006, 3:19:54 PM, you wrote:
So, you can try to make "collections" a default package, so I can start moving stuff out of "base" into it.
SM> I'm not completely comfortable with shipping this framework with GHC at SM> the moment, given the small amount of discussion it has received, and SM> the volume of competition in this space. This isn't a criticism of the SM> design at all (indeed, I haven't looked at it in detail). I'd much SM> prefer to see this provided as a separate package for now. SM> Of course if a concensus emerges that this collections framework is the SM> right way to go, then we'll certainly include it - a collections SM> framework is pretty basic functionality. i want to support this. i also working on the libs that, i hope, will go into the ghc 6.6, but until they are thoroughly tested and tuned it's better to make them individual packages. in particular, i name my modules "GHC.Arr_", "Data.Array_.*" and so on, so that they can be compiled together with existing GHC sources but this naming makes obvious what modules of base package they should replace on the other side, it may be a good idea to give to such packages some place on the official darcs server so that work on them can be made collaborative as on other ghc/base parts -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com