The future of the Haskell98 and Haskell2010 packages

[David Feuer]

I think you're right, and that's a strong reason to come up with an update
to the Haskell Report. Include in it, at least:

-- Big-ticket items
0. Monoid
1. Foldable, Traversable
2. Applicative
3. Applicative => Monad
-- side notes
4. inits = map reverse . scanl (flip (:)) []  -- efficiency—not optimal but
not hilariously bad
5. unwords = intercalate " "  -- increased, more intuitive laziness

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Richard Eisenberg <eir at cis.upenn.edu>
wrote:

> I support this direction. But I disagree with one statement you've made:
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Austin Seipp <austin at well-typed.com> wrote:
> > To be clear: GHC can still typecheck, compile, and efficiently execute
> > Haskell 2010 code. It is merely the distribution of compatible
> > packages that has put us in something of a bind.
>
> GHC 7.10 will not be able to compile a Haskell2010-compliant Monad
> instance. In fact, as far as I can see, there is no way to write a Monad
> instance that is both portable to other Haskell compilers and acceptable to
> GHC 7.10. I think this point should be included in the manual (if I'm
> right).
>
> This makes me a little sad, but I don't disagree with any of the decisions
> we've made along the way.
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141118/8b932272/attachment.html>