Let's play Name That Extension!
stefanor at cox.net
Sat Mar 31 02:20:34 EDT 2007
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:41:47PM -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> A large number of the newer GHC extensions have no cabal name. This
> is a very bad situation because if Hugs/yhc/etc were to gain support
> for (say) GADTs, it would not be possible to run cabal programs that
> require them, since the way programs specify dependency is with
> -fglasgow-exts. Also, what is the protocol for requesting cabal
> extension names? I've many Cool Extension Ideas for my haskeell impl
> project (nowhere near done).
Forgot to mention...
Some of the existing extensions are not self explanatory. How
flexible are FlexibleInstances and FlexibleContexts? Does Rank2Types
involve the old GHC restrictions? (no pattern bindings, no partial
application, etc) Does RankNTypes include impredicativity? Are
ScopedTypeVariables 6.4 style, 6.6 style, (ML style)? What is a
ContextStack? What are Generics? And the last two made no sense
before I read the Hugs User Guide last(?) week. The others are fine
More information about the cabal-devel