GHC 9.0?

[Richard Eisenberg]

Despite having to withdraw my claim about dependent types in GHC 9.0, now does seem like a good time for the bump, for the reasons articulated in this thread.

Richard

> On Jul 18, 2020, at 3:55 AM, Takenobu Tani <takenobu.hs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is also major change of the GHC API structure by Sylvain :)
> 
> Regards,
> Takenobu
> 
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:01 AM Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On July 17, 2020 6:51:25 PM EDT, Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can’t dependent haskell be 10?
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 1:09 AM, Alan & Kim Zimmerman
>>> <alan.zimm at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have to admit this thought had crossed my mind too.
>>>> 
>>>> Alan
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:11, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That's likely to be a fairly long wait, as i understand it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/17/20, chessai <chessai1996 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I always thought that we were waiting for -XDependentHaskell
>>> before we
>>>>> went
>>>>>> to 9. That's just been my impression though; no one has has ever
>>> said
>>>>> that,
>>>>>> AFAIK. Perhaps it is wrong.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 9:04 AM Krzysztof Gogolewski
>>>>>> <krz.gogolewski at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is an exceptional number of changes stated for the next
>>> release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Better pattern matching coverage detection
>>>>>>> * New windows IO manager
>>>>>>> * Linear types
>>>>>>> * Large-scale typechecker changes - Taming the Kind Inference
>>> Monster,
>>>>>>> simplified subsumption
>>>>>>> * Better register allocation, improving runtime by 0.8% according
>>> to
>>>>>>> release notes
>>>>>>> * ghc-bignum
>>>>>>> * Explicit specificity and eager instantiation
>>>>>>> * Qualified do
>>>>>>> * Lexical negation
>>>>>>> * Perhaps Quick Look will manage to land
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we call it GHC 9.0? I think the name would be deserved.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>>>>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> brandon s allbery kf8nh
>>>>> allbery.b at gmail.com
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>>> 
>> 
>> No objection from me. Indeed it has been a while since we had a supermajor bump and linear types is quite a significant feature.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> - Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs