Scope of committee (can we do *new* things?)

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com> writes:

> While such changes should definitely be in scope, I do think that the proper
> mechanism would be to garner enough interest to get a patch into GHC
> (whether through discussion on the -prime list or elsewhere) and have an
> experimental implementation, even for syntax changes, before such proposals
> are considered ready for acceptance into a standard as such.

Just a side note: This is often how the C++ committee proceeds as well: a
language proposal with an experimental implementation is given much higher
credence than paperware. However, they don't exclude paperware either.

So I don't think we need to rely on implementation before considering a
feature we all want, but I do agree that seeing a patch in GHC first allows
for much testing and experimentation.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2