Status of Haskell Prime Language definition

[Iavor Diatchki]

Hello,

On 10/16/07, apfelmus <apfelmus at quantentunnel.de> wrote:
> Robert Will wrote:
> > Could someone please summarize the current status and planned time
> > line for Haskell'?
>
> John Launchbury wrote:
> > Up to now, the Haskell' effort has been mostly about exploring the
> > possibilities, to find out what could be in Haskell', and to scope out
> > what it might mean. We've now reached the stage where we want to do the
> > opposite, namely trying to pin down what we definitely want to have in
> > the standard, and what it should look like in detail.
>
> There's still a major technical obstacle, namely  functional
> dependencies  vs  associated type synonyms . Some functionality for
> programming in the type system is needed for Haskell' but fundeps are
> too tricky to get powerful and sound at the same time. The problem with
> their promising alternative of associated type synonyms is that they're
> very young with their first official release being the upcoming GHC 6.8
> . So, they have to stand some test of time before Haskell' can pick one
> of the two (probably the latter).

I am not aware of any soundness problems related to functional
dependencies---could you give an example?

-Iavor