Proposal process status

Ben Gamari ben at
Wed Jul 20 16:37:38 UTC 2016

Yuras Shumovich <shumovichy at> writes:

> Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here:
Thanks for your comments Yuras!

>>   * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the
>> status quo?
> Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so formalizing it
> is a win in any case.
Good to hear.

>>   * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if
>>     anything?
> The proposed process overlaps with the Language Committee powers. In
> theory the Committee works on language standard, but de facto Haskell
> is GHC/Haskell and GHC/Haskell is Haskell. Adding new extension to GHC
> adds new extension to Haskell. So I'd like the process to enforce
> separation between experimental extensions (not recommended in
> production code) and language improvements. I'd like the process to
> specify how the GHC Committee is going to communicate and share powers
> with the Language Committee.
To clarify I think Language Committee here refers to the Haskell Prime
committee, right?

I think these two bodies really do serve different purposes.
Historically the Haskell Prime committee has been quite conservative in
the sorts of changes that they standardized; as far as I know almost all
of them come from a compiler. I would imagine that the GHC Committee
would be a gate-keeper for proposals entering GHC and only some time
later, when the semantics and utility of the extension are
well-understood, would the Haskell Prime committee consider introducing
it to the Report. As far as I understand it, this is historically how
things have worked in the past, and I don't think this new process would
change that.

Of course, let me know if I'm off-base here.


- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list