From 1f4a028b0233c9e07adfaefb58649db6dfb798b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:07:40 -0400 Subject: comment --- ...comment_1_4b0cd7acc6442210a80c547981b5ae45._comment | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/todo/Add_MonadBaseControl_instance_to_Propellor/comment_1_4b0cd7acc6442210a80c547981b5ae45._comment (limited to 'doc/todo/Add_MonadBaseControl_instance_to_Propellor') diff --git a/doc/todo/Add_MonadBaseControl_instance_to_Propellor/comment_1_4b0cd7acc6442210a80c547981b5ae45._comment b/doc/todo/Add_MonadBaseControl_instance_to_Propellor/comment_1_4b0cd7acc6442210a80c547981b5ae45._comment new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b38a015f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/todo/Add_MonadBaseControl_instance_to_Propellor/comment_1_4b0cd7acc6442210a80c547981b5ae45._comment @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2016-11-30T21:07:26Z" + content=""" +I'm not entirely opposed to it, but this does add another two +dependencies that have to be installed on every host managed by propellor. + +Also, I don't really understand the instance MonadBaseControl +implementation. (And have always had that difficulty with +monad-control, which is one of the reasons I've stopped using it.) +This and not having anything to test it with makes me fear maintaining it. + +It looks like it would be sufficient make Propellor derive MonadBase IO, +and then the MonadBaseControl instance could be shipped in another +package (or even implemented in your config.hs). Does that sound like a +reasonable compromise? +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3