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

[Daniel Peebles]

I agree. Maybe since everyone agrees this needs changing, but nobody can
agree on how, it'd be worth electing a committee of "benevolent dictators"
that we trust to actually just get the stuff done without all the
bikeshedding that happens if this stuff happens on the mailing list?

Dan

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <rl at cse.unsw.edu.au>wrote:

> John Smith wrote:
> >
> > The idea is that if this proposal is accepted for GHC 7.2, other
> > proposals can be put forward for the same version. All the changes should
> > land in the same release.
>
> This change requires an update of the Haskell report. Tying Prelude
> changes to the libraries process and GHC releases doesn't seem right to
> me. At the very least, I would expect such a proposal to include
> corresponding patches to the report.
>
> In general, a piecemeal redesign of the Prelude is IMO a very bad idea. If
> it needs to be redesigned then this should be done in one big sweep to
> minimise the number of times we break people's code and also to have a
> chance to ensure that the changes are somewhat consistent.
>
> BTW, http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4834 contains 3 patches,
> one for GHC, one for Happy and one for base. IIUC, the first two don't
> really depend on the base patch and should perhaps be integrated into the
> code bases now, regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
>
> Roman
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20110204/50e854cf/attachment.htm>