Class System current status

[Aaron Denney]

On 2006-05-13, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Stephanie Weirich:
>> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> > My suggestion is this:
>> >
>> > * Specify MPTCs in the main language
>> >
>> > * Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
>> > 	interpretation of FDs). 
>> >
>> > * A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and
>> > 	programmers can write programs against it.  But
>> > 	we are advertising specifically that we aren't sure, one way
>> > 	or the other, whether FDs will stay in the language for ever
>> >
>> >   
>> Simon,
>> 
>> Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that 
>> says "we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in the 
>> language for ever."  Why do we need this extra structure?
>
> IMHO the right thing is to decouple finalising an FD/AT appendix from
> finalising the main body of Haskell'.  This is clearly more easily
> realised when the delayed material is out-of-line.

Meh.  I'd really like a revised numeric prelude to be able to use MPTCs
with FDs.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-