backward compatibility

Ian Lynagh igloo at
Fri Jan 21 03:12:18 CET 2011

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
> In the case of the layout "bug", I think it might be worth considering  
> going the other way: adjusting the standard with what ghc has always  
> done.

Anyone can propose language changes - the process is described here:

> I therefore think that keeping the number of extensions 
> to a minimum should be a high priority. It seems that the ghc team is 
> going overboard with the amount of extensions and their granularity that 
> I do not believe that there will ever be another compiler since 
> implementing all these extensions is a nightmare. The road of may 
> extensions is leading down the road that the Haskell standards aimed to 
> avoid: having a single implementation defining what a Haskell program can 
> be.

I'm not sure if you're saying there should be fewer new language
features implemented, less fine-grained control over which are enabled,
or something else?


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list