Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Is there any consensus?

Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Fri Feb 4 12:15:42 CET 2011

On 03/02/2011 16:04, 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>  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.

Right, I think the two processes are independent.

We should have a major libraries revision soon and redesign everything. 
  I'm thinking we start it sometime in the next few months, aiming to 
get it into a GHC release in late 2012.  We'll continue to support 
Haskell2010 (and Haskell2012 if appropriate), but to what extent those 
will be compatible with the new libraries depends on what changes we make.


More information about the Libraries mailing list