On 02.03 12:22, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't suggest changing the module name of Text.Html. Ross suggests moving it to the network package - I'm abivalent about that. A completely separate package (html) would be fine by me.
I think that we should have one package that implements the real networking (sockets, name resolving etc) and a separate package that manages various network related data formats. Having Network.HTML but Text.XML.* seems quite illogical.
In reply to maeder: yes the package boundaries do reflect implementation dependencies. I don't think this is a big problem. In theory we could rename /everything/ in base to be PackageBase.* and then re-export the actual interfaces from a bunch of separate packages, but that doesn't really buy much, and it's a lot of work.
I think it would be nice to have implementation dependent code (GHC.*) and implementation independent code in separate packages. Currently there is no way to know whether a Cabal package depending on base wants Data.List or GHC.Something. - Einar Karttunen