Hi
I was referring to base as "the set of Core libraries" - my terminology was wrong, but my arguments were written with me thinking "containers", so still apply.
You arguments suggest that every module should be in a separate package. In my experience this is a bad idea.
I think that any brand new module being proposed for the Core libraries should first be available as a package, and then integrated into the Core libraries afterwards. I think the barrier for getting things in the Core libraries should be much higher. For non-Core libraries, I would advocate grouping modules by functionality into packages - but for non-Core libraries people are free to do whatever they want :-)
Talking to people on IRC today it appears there is a reasonably large design space for a zipper interface. If this is true, then putting a
Could you elaborate on this? What are the different design choices that your IRC discussions revealed?
ndm> I was wondering if there is just one way to do a zipper? _other person_> I've done them using several different interfaces, I'm not quite sure which one I like best yet. (I know who _other person_ is, but it seems unfair to quote IRC with names back at people, given the instant and non-committal nature of IRC)
I think that's a real shame. Maintaining a cabal package is relatively little effort. I have several packages which are just one module long
Mico-managing a slew of different packages is a pain, especially if you are actually serious about maintaining the packages. It also makes finding packages and keeping track of the dependencies between them hard---cabal-install only helps with downloading the right packages, and it is not always an option to use it.
If you have a package for every single module, then yes. If not, then its not that bad. Yes, you need some more infrastructure, but Cabal provides most of it. Maintaining a zipper package for a few months really wouldn't be that much work. Thanks Neil