[Haskell-cafe] what is basic Haskell?

[Donn Cave]

> Oh, that makes sense. If you regularly do stuff with OverlappingInstances,

... which you wouldn't, at a basic level?

Rather than split off a whole set of basic categories like
- basic Haskell
- really basic Haskell
- really, really basic Haskell

... it makes sense to me to distinguish "basic" from "what we use
all the time at our shop."

Basic would be, as Johan Larson proposed, the things you'd really need
to write in Haskell, with fundamental properties of the language that
contribute to reusability, type safety etc.  We could reasonably put
type classes at that level, for example, if for no other reason than
it's hard to make any sense out of the platform libraries without knowing
about classes and instances etc.  But language features that aren't
even supported by default?  Is that even Haskell, as opposed to GHC?

	Donn