Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Is there any consensus?
ganesh.sittampalam at credit-suisse.com
Thu Feb 3 17:15:39 CET 2011
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:50:38PM +0000, Stephen Tetley wrote:
>> On 3 February 2011 14:24, John Smith <voldermort at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2011 15:54, Stephen Tetley wrote:
>>>> I'd contend the proposal is too disruptive to be independent of a
>>>> language revision, so I'd vote no on the proposal as it stands.
>>> What do you mean by "independent of a language revision"? The idea
>>> is that, if accepted, this will be proposed for Haskell'.
>> The current proposal is a libraries change against "Base" which is
>> roughly speaking means it is a proposal to change GHC 7.0.2.
> 7.2.1, not 7.0.2.
>> My feeling is that a change of this
>> magnitude should be a change to the language standard i.e. Haskell
>> 2012 (Prelude is covered by the standard).
> I'm sure we discussed this recently, but I can't find it now. Anyway,
> my understanding is that the consensus is that the libraries process
> will be used even for changes to libraries that require changes in
> the (next version of the) report.
Even in the case of splitting fail out of Monad, which would require
that do expressions have different types depending on whether they
contain incomplete pattern matches or not?
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
More information about the Libraries