Status of Haskell'?
jason.dusek at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 22:42:02 CET 2012
2012/11/30 Gábor Lehel <illissius at gmail.com>:
> Executive summary: We don't need a new standard right now. If
> people don't think it's worth their while to work on it,
> they're probably right. New, competing implementations might
> be valuable. If we have them, there will be demand for a
> standard, making decisions about it will be easier, and it
> will probably be better.
It would be nice for there to be a new standard so that many
features in GHC -- such as overloaded strings, rank n types,
MPTCs, &c. -- were enabled by default without any pragmas.
This standardization process amounts to "endorsement of existing
features" which seems like not a bad process at all. It makes
the standard descriptive rather than predictive.
pgp // solidsnack // C1EBC57DC55144F35460C8DF1FD4C6C1FED18A2B
More information about the Haskell-prime