Quantcast

Whither the AFPP?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Whither the AFPP?

Boespflug, Mathieu
Hi all,

a few folks got together to propose this nearly 2 years ago:


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.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Whither the AFPP?

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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Whither the AFPP?

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.

Regards,
Eric

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:43 PM Ben Franksen <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Whither the AFPP?

Ben Franksen
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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Whither the AFPP?

Kosyrev Serge-2
In reply to this post by Boespflug, Mathieu
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
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Whither the AFPP?

Sven Panne-2
2017-02-27 13:19 GMT+01:00 Kosyrev Serge <[hidden email]>:
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:


Cheers,
   S.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Loading...