<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>+1 from me for keeping the two separate as well. While GHC may be the obviously prevalent Haskell compiler it is a far from the only one,</p><p class=MsoNormal>And I’d hate to have to look at a proposal for adding an extension to GHC (which would be riddled with GHC specific implementation specifics) </p><p class=MsoNormal>Rather than a clean specification.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Maybe I’m naïve but I also see the Haskell committees as doing more than just copy pasting what’s worked. But also evaluate how it can be done</p><p class=MsoNormal>Better. I can perfectly well see situations where the implementation in GHC ended up being less useful than It should be just because of </p><p class=MsoNormal>Implementation quirks/difficulties in GHC. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,</p><p class=MsoNormal>Tamar </p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:rae@cs.brynmawr.edu">Richard Eisenberg</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, July 21, 2016 18:26<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:shumovichy@gmail.com">Yuras Shumovich</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org">ghc-users</a>; <a href="mailto:gershomb@gmail.com">Gershom B</a>; <a href="mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org">GHC developers</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: Proposal process status</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Yuras Shumovich <shumovichy@gmail.com> wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> Unfortunately Haskell *is* implementation-defined language. You can't</p><p class=MsoNormal>> compile any nontrivial package from Hackage using Haskell2010 GHC.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sadly, I agree with this statement. And I think this is what we're trying to change.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> And</p><p class=MsoNormal>> the same will be true for Haskell2020. We rely on GHC-specific</p><p class=MsoNormal>> extensions everywhere, directly or indirectly. If the goal of the</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Haskell Prime is to change that, then the GHC-specific extensions</p><p class=MsoNormal>> should not be first class citizens in the ecosystem.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My hope is that Haskell2020 will allow us to differentiate between standardized extensions and implementation-defined ones. A key part of this hope is that we'll get enough extensions in the first set to allow a sizeable portion of our ecosystem to used only standardized extensions.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> We can continue pretending that Haskell is standard-defined language,</p><p class=MsoNormal>> but it will not help to change the situation. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But writing a new standard that encompasses prevalent usage will help to change the situation. And that's the process I'm hoping to contribute to.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Richard</p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>ghc-devs mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>ghc-devs@haskell.org</p><p class=MsoNormal>http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>