Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
other compilers & interpreters?
Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
FilePath and ByteString, both of which were obvious deficiencies in
the libraries. I'm now not aware of any hole that is likely to get
plugged by bundling an additional library.
There still seem to be plenty of holes left. (No "standard" Finite
Element Analysis or Digital Signal Processing libs for example.)
Or put another way, what is so important about the holes that are filled
by packages like GLUT,HGL,OpenGL,html,parsec,pretty,xhtml (to name a
few) that require "standard" library implementations.
Should
something experimental be a base package? And shouldn't all modules that are
base packages declare their status?
No, they should all be reasonably stable. Things that are unstable are
likely to move out of the standard libraries and just become hackage
packages.
Libs are not "standard" simply because they happen to be bundled with
ghc. And how is it that such unstable libs came to be bundled in the
first place, given the alleged superior stability and quality control
:-)
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
