On 5 Oct 2010, at 19:18, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Well, if that's the consensus, then we're at an impasse, because the libraries process is a trackless mire as has been fairly clearly demonstrated over the past few days, and I'm not going to change the names or types of the text functions. I've got better things to do than slog through such an ungratifying and demoralising morass.
But if someone else were to track down all the name inconsistencies, fix them, and submit a patch to you, would you accept it? Regards, Malcolm P.S. I agree with you somewhat about the demoralising nature of the Haskell Platform addition process. I have been sitting on the sidelines thinking "thank goodness it wasn't one of my packages that was proposed". I've also been thinking, how come new packages in the HP are held to higher standards than the existing ones? AFAICT, many of the current packages are in the Platform simply because a ghc hacker once decided to use them (and hence they became widely distributed, regardless of quality). (Yes, I'm looking at you, parsec and containers.) Sadly, I don't have any better suggestions for a submissions process.