Harry Garrood
Harry Garrood
@chexxor To respond to your points: - encapsulation: if we are going to make it possible to have modules in a package which are not exposed by that package (I...
Oops, premature submission there. Re depending on multiple versions: I don’t think it’s clear that the extra flexibility that you get from being able to depend on multiple versions makes...
#2477 should probably be subsumed into this issue; since I think these things are related - dependencies you might want to reuse compile artifacts for should almost always be in...
I'll cross-post a comment I just posted on the spago issue https://github.com/spacchetti/spago/issues/527 here, as I think the justification for why I'm keen on this isn't sufficiently clear right now: >...
@natefaubion Do you think it would make sense to say that there should be a reasonably clear specification for something before it can be moved into "intend to implement"? Putting...
That makes sense. I am up for seeing the feature through implementation and release; I guess I just want to reserve the right to change my mind if we uncover...
Ok cool - I'm good with leaving it as is then :)
I'm confused - I don't understand how to usefully respond without answering those questions. I also think they're good questions which deserve responses if we are to make progress on...
Possibly worth considering simultaneously: https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/2477.
Putting it in "What next" sounds preferable to me, since we aren't doing anything that requires it in the guide, and people will be able to see something happen faster...