Class System current status

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

John Hughes:
> Haskell' should define a standard language for use TODAY--and it
> should be 100% clear what that language is, with no pussy-footing
> around difficult choices. In my view it should include FDs. Then in
> the future they may be replaced--but it should then be clear that this
> IS a replacement, with no arguments of the sort "well it's not really
> an incompatible change because FDs were only in an appendix"! Let's
> face it, people ARE going to use FDs whatever the standard says,
> because they're just so godamn useful, and rewriting those programs if
> FDs are replaced by ATs is not going to be any easier because it's an
> appendix that's changing, rather than the main body of the report.

I agree that having FDs in the appendix does not make an essential
difference to how easy they are to replace.  Hence, I proposed a
variation on this proposal is that we actually delay issuing the
appendix.  More precisely,

* Specify MPTCs in the main language.

* Finalise Haskell' without an FD/AT appendix.

* Take our time to find out exactly how we want to do type level 
  programming (with FDs, or ATs, or both).  Once we know, we add an 
  appendix on type-level programming.

This moves the MPTC dilemma out of the critical path for Haskell' as a
whole, but avoids that we have to rush the FD/AT issue.

Manuel

PS: I actually thought that this was what Simon proposed when he
originally brought up the appendix idea, which may have been only
between the class system subcommittee members.