Peter Simons wrote:
I am sorry for being vague earlier. What I was trying to say is that I feel like we have discussed this timeout function for a very long time now, and I feel like I have put quite a bit of effort into this particular endeavor. I would very much like to achieve a result.
Simon, in your article <45586F40.4080507@microsoft.com> you said explicitly that you were in favor of adding this function to the GHC base libraries. Do you still feel the same way?
How about everyone else? Is there any reason why this function should not be added to the base library? I would very much appreciate it if we could reach some sort of conclusion within the next two weeks.
Anyway, I don't want to leave a wrong impression. The discussion has been very interesting, insightful, and it has helped to improve the submission. It's just that I feel we have discussed these 15 lines of code long enough, really.
Quite right. I've pushed the patch now. Thanks for all your work on it. Cheers, Simon