ANNOUNCE: GHC survey results

[Jim Apple]

robert dockins wrote:

>> Why remove a feature from a product? Why not, instead, just choose to 
>> not use it?
> 
> Because the feature complicates the product, increases maintainance 
> costs, and keeps the maintainers from working on other things people 
> care more about?

That's fair. I just hope the implicit parameter implementation is 
orthogonal enough that it's worth keeping around.

I think the motivating examples in "Implicit parameters: dynamic scoping 
with static types" (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/246042.html&e=10342) are 
at least as compelling as those in the just-implemented 
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cvs.all/19423) 
"Associated types with class", 
(http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/papers/assoc-types/), but 
maybe it's just me.

Jim