One opportunity would be to common up most of the interfaces for Mutable data structures that have both an io and st version. Eg St ref and io ref. The only reason we have both is because we don’t have PrimMonad in base! Likewise, stuff like the iomanager could perhaps be tweaked so we could do localized simulations in the st monad? On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:32 AM George Wilson wrote:

Is it likely that other improvements to base would be enabled by this move? If so, I think I'd be in favour of it, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort of the migration if there's only one or a couple.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 23:28, Andrew Martin wrote:

...

Relatedly, in an MR I started years ago but never finished, I did some

work on the event manager to cut out a bunch of unneeded allocations [1]. This included replacing cons lists in several places with SmallArray. I had to copy in a bunch of code from primitive to do this. The strongest argument I see for moving some of primitive's machinery into base (and then reexporting it in primitive) is that there might be other places in base that could benefit from it. But I'm not certain of what those other places are.

...

[1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/313

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:18 AM Carter Schonwald <

...

...

This is something I’ve pondered on and off, And the classes PrimMonad

and PrimMonadBase are super stable

...

Argument in favor of base :

there’s absolutely code in base, and packages like array, which would

benefit from PrimMonad. Plus it might allow more reuse / encourage more ST monad code in the wild? (I always feel like ST monad is underused. )

...

Argument against base: Then a lot of PrimMonad instances would need to live in transformers.

And I’m not sure if maintainers over there would want that?

...

Argument in favor of mtl: it’s where all the other transformer stack

stuff gets defined. So all the upkeep for monad instances is already going on there regularly.

...

Argument against mtl : aside from concentrating the upkeep on

carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote: transformer stack instances it seems like it wouldn’t enable new improvements to base.

...

...

Another option is to have some sort of clone of the class in base , as

long as it pays for itself in code reuse / simplification within base

...

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- -Andrew Thaddeus Martin _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries