Bardur: Yes! I want *this*! In addition to short-circuiting this epic
argument, it looks way better. I've always wished Haskell had the ML
module system, but this looks even better than that in some ways. So,
yes. Let's get backpack into GHC, require it on Hackage, and get on
with it. Note that backpack by itself isn't sufficient, since it only
guarantees type-compatibility, not semantic compatibility. We would
have to add additional rules requiring at least partial semantic
compatibility of any changes to the semantics at a given name. --Bart
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Bardur Arantsson
On 2014-02-25 18:26, Carter Schonwald wrote:
indeed.
So lets think about how to add module types or some approximation thereof to GHC? (seriously, thats the only sane "best solution" i can think of, but its not something that can be done casually). Theres also the fact that any module system design will have to explicitly deal with type class instances in a more explicit fashion than we've done thus far.
This may be relevant:
http://plv.mpi-sws.org/backpack/
Regards,
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries