Changes between Version 17 and Version 18 of NewLibraryCandidates


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jan 16, 2006 1:08:04 AM (10 years ago)
Author:
ross@…
Comment:

summarize discussion

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • NewLibraryCandidates

    v17 v18  
    1 Suggestions should go under the heading that best describes the reasons they should be included.
     1= New Library Candidates =
     2
     3Though there is a collection of libraries shared by all implementations, we might still wish to standardize some libraries, for the following reasons:
     4
     5 * a standard library might have specifications of functions, while some implementations may be optimized.
     6
     7 * stability of interfaces.
     8
     9The following headings are suggested criteria for standard libraries.
     10Candidates should go under the heading that best describes the reasons they should be included.
    211
    312== Require or could use compiler support ==
     
    2130 * ExtensibleExceptions
    2231 * monad transformers (though they require MultiParamTypeClasses and FunctionalDependencies)
    23 
    24 == On the importance of standardizing libraries ==
    25 
    26  * Is there a point to have a library codified in the standard when the fptools library is the de-facto standard anyway?  Does it make a practical difference for anyone?
    27 
    28    I think so. A library that's in the standard might have specifications of functions. Thus different implementations of the library can be compared w.r.t. a definitive
    29    specification. Another point is stability. For example, the step from GHC 6.2 to GHC 6.4 caused quite a few library interfaces to change incompatibly.
    30    As a result, programs didn't compile any longer. On the other hand, the Haskell-98-standard libs are still supported. I think we should strive for stability of library
    31    interfaces. Whether it has to be by including libraries into the standard or by other means, I don't know. -- Andres