The 22/11/11, Piyush P Kurur wrote: > Many here will agree to almost all the points that you raised about > Haskell. However the way the you introdued might have irked some. I'm sorry about that. Poor circumstances might give this wrong impression. > Here is how one would go about suggesting such a changes: > > "Hi folks I was interested to know whether implementing rollbacks like > NixOS is interesting for people here. Since I feel that C is too low > level as a first step I am attempting a port of pacman to Haskell. > The code is available under darcs at http://somewhere.org/me/ > Patches are welcome. The current version does nothign but prints > package meta info. > > Regards > > me" Notice I'm not the OP show suggested porting pacman to Haskell. I came into this thread after the facts and tried hard to make the original suggestion as a part of the larger POV in favor of high-level languages. Also, I don't want to flame and rather keep the discussion out of free attacks against the current team of developers. I took part of this thread only because I've already been faced to pacman limitations in its current form. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
