On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM, wren ng thornton
Gwern Branwen wrote:
See http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/640
It seems to me that a warning on using the 'haskell98' package wouldn't be a bad thing; those modules have since been split apart in better modules, the names are ever more unfamiliar, etc.
But Duncan thinks it merits discussion.
I'm all for the warnings. And regarding guest's comments, doesn't the Haskell 2010 standard[1] count as an "actual language standard"? If not, then what is it and why isn't it one?
[1] http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2009-November/021750.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought 'HierarchicalModules' was an extension which codifies the 'Foo.Bar' import syntax (as opposed to 'import FooBar'), and didn't address allocation of functions to modules or naming issues like 'Char' vs 'Data.Char' or splitting 'Foreign' up or whatever. -- gwern