patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add ""Make $ left associative, like application"

Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks157k at
Wed Jun 4 16:32:53 EDT 2008

Am Montag, 28. April 2008 06:29 schrieben Sie:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch:
> > Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 05:13 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:
> > > […]
> > >
> > > Hence, anything that is *important* to change, we should change now.
> >
> > Although I can follow your arguments, I thought that the large and
> > disruptive changes should be done for Haskell 2.
> Depends what you mean by Haskell 2.  If it is an experimental language
> that shares some superficial similarities with Haskell, sure we may
> have Haskell 2.  If you mean a serious successor of Haskell with the
> expectation that many/most Haskell users will eventually move to
> Haskell 2, then no.  Haskell has been gaining a lot of momentum
> recently.  That's good and bad, but surely makes it hard to change the
> trajectory.  (This is, of course, just my personal opinion.)
> > If they should really be done now, we should also fix a lot of other
> > things.  For example, the Num hierarchy, the Functor/Applicative/Monad
> > hierarchy, the fact that there exist Alternative and MonadPlus although we
> > have Monoid, the fact that we cannot have contexts like (forall a. Monoid
> > (m a)) which is the source for the last problem, the fact that we don’t
> > have class aliases, ugly names like fmap and mappend, etc.
> As Lennart and Ganesh have argued, the amount of breaking changes that
> we we will be able to fit in without causing serious problems is
> limited.
> Manuel

Hello again (after a long time),

the things I proposed above are mostly library changes which could mostly be 
made non-disruptive if we had class aliases.  Would this make them acceptable 
for you?

Best wishes,

More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list