
Hi all, a few folks got together to propose this nearly 2 years ago: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal/AbstractFilePath Has anything become of this proposal? Might it be helpful to have a similar process as ghc-proposals for changes in base and the boot libraries that do not otherwise affect the compiler or the language, so as to track the status of these things more consistently? Best, -- Mathieu Boespflug Founder at http://tweag.io.

Am 26.02.2017 um 21:58 schrieb Boespflug, Mathieu:
a few folks got together to propose this nearly 2 years ago:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal/AbstractFilePath
Has anything become of this proposal? Might it be helpful to have a similar process as ghc-proposals for changes in base and the boot libraries that do not otherwise affect the compiler or the language, so as to track the status of these things more consistently?
i am strongly +1, fwiw current situation is very unfortunate and this would mean progress Cheers Ben

If we're going to improve the state of the file path type, it would be
appropriate to first develop a package to work out the new design. Packages
have already tried and failed at this, and the base package isn't the place
to experiment in this space. Once this package existed and saw wide use,
allowing kinks in the API to be worked out, it would then be appropriate to
think about migrating base to it.
Regards,
Eric
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:43 PM Ben Franksen
Am 26.02.2017 um 21:58 schrieb Boespflug, Mathieu:
a few folks got together to propose this nearly 2 years ago:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal/AbstractFilePath
Has anything become of this proposal? Might it be helpful to have a similar process as ghc-proposals for changes in base and the boot libraries that do not otherwise affect the compiler or the language, so as to track the status of these things more consistently?
i am strongly +1, fwiw
current situation is very unfortunate and this would mean progress
Cheers Ben
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Am 27.02.2017 um 01:07 schrieb Eric Mertens:
If we're going to improve the state of the file path type, it would be appropriate to first develop a package to work out the new design. Packages have already tried and failed at this, and the base package isn't the place to experiment in this space. Once this package existed and saw wide use, allowing kinks in the API to be worked out, it would then be appropriate to think about migrating base to it.
the way i understand the proposal it doesn'work that way, it's about a migration path in the face of many existing modules, not only base, that use the FilePath type synonym.
Regards, Eric
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:43 PM Ben Franksen
wrote: Am 26.02.2017 um 21:58 schrieb Boespflug, Mathieu:
a few folks got together to propose this nearly 2 years ago:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal/AbstractFilePath
Has anything become of this proposal? Might it be helpful to have a similar process as ghc-proposals for changes in base and the boot libraries that do not otherwise affect the compiler or the language, so as to track the status of these things more consistently?
i am strongly +1, fwiw
current situation is very unfortunate and this would mean progress
Cheers Ben
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Good day! If there is an interest in prior art, /and/ there is a motivation in making things future-proof, there is that somewhat elaborate construction coming from Common Lisp: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node203.html Quoting:
The main difficulty in dealing with names of files is that different file systems have different naming formats for files.
...
Therefore, Common Lisp provides two ways to represent file names: namestrings, which are strings in the implementation-dependent form customary for the file system, and pathnames, which are special abstract data objects that represent file names in an implementation-independent way.
A particularly intriguing passage, personally, is the following one:
In order to allow Common Lisp programs to operate in a network environment that may have more than one kind of file system, the pathname facility allows a file name to specify which file system is to be used. In this context, each file system is called a host, in keeping with the usual networking terminology.
...
Different hosts may use different notations for file names. Common Lisp allows customary notation to be used for each host, but also supports a system of logical pathnames that provides a standard framework for naming files in a portable manner.
I.e. if one squints hard enough, and reads between the lines, some shades of network transparent naming could be seen.. -- с уважениeм / respectfully, Косырев Сергей -- “Most deadly errors arise from obsolete assumptions.” -- Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

2017-02-27 13:19 GMT+01:00 Kosyrev Serge
Good day!
If there is an interest in prior art, /and/ there is a motivation in making things future-proof, there is that somewhat elaborate construction coming from Common Lisp:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node203.html [...]
And something more (= a quarter century ;-) recent from C++-land: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3505.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0011r0.html Cheers, S.
participants (5)
-
Ben Franksen
-
Boespflug, Mathieu
-
Eric Mertens
-
Kosyrev Serge
-
Sven Panne