-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Data.Array.Byte should also export MutableByteArray
#49
Comments
The prompt was https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20620 where I wondered if it could be extended to MutableByteArray. But that would require this change. |
The rationale for the decision not to export In short, |
In my opinion base can reasonably provide a lifted wrapper for a unlifted type without providing operations on the lifted variant. This would cut down on different names/types being used in different libraries for what amounts to the same thing. If the CLC considers it better to have no lifted wrapper over a lifted wrapper with no operations so be it. |
Yes, I suppose you could simply export the type given that none of the instances for |
Originally I decided against exporting |
This sounds sensible to me too, to prevent proliferation of third party wrappers. However, it seems that I'm not particularly familiar with this corner of the ecosystem, so apologies if my question makes no sense. |
Yes, same as @AndreasPK could you please prepare an MR, adding |
Dear CLC members, please vote on https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/7785 +1 from me |
Now that we have a concrete PR to look at, I realise that I am confused by the purpose of the instance Typeable s => Data (MutableByteArray s) where
toConstr _ = error "toConstr"
gunfold _ _ = error "gunfold"
dataTypeOf _ = mkNoRepType "Data.Data.Array.Byte.MutableByteArray"
|
For reference I simply kept the instances currently provided by |
Ah I see, i.e. defined at https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-18.27/primitive-0.7.3.0/src/Data.Primitive.ByteArray.html#line-532 In that case, +1 from me. |
+1 |
2 similar comments
+1 |
+1 |
Thanks all, with 5 votes in favor the proposal is approved. |
I'm trying to summarise the state of this proposal as part of my volunteering effort to track the progress of all
Please, let me know if you find any mistakes 🙂 |
Because it makes no sense to do this for immutable ones but not mutable ones.
That's all.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: