At 2001-03-13 09:04, Dylan Thurston wrote:

...

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:18:32PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

Ok, I acknowledge that. I think we seem to be gradually coming to a consensus on Marcin's point - that the functionality of a library should be paramount in the naming scheme, regardless of implementation, standardness, portability, etc. This is good.

With the exception of the Prelude, right?

Is a Prelude even necessary? Might it not be better to import what you want explicitly?

In the long term, I think it would be a good idea to redesign the Prelude to be more minimal. But for the time being, we should provide the Haskell98 Prelude exactly as-is but place it in the new namespace somewhere. Cheers, Simon