FWIW, I am forgoing functional dependencies and going straight to type families/associated types in jhc. They are easier to implement and much cleaner IMHO.
John On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Yes, I think type families are here to stay. > > There is no formal policy about GHC extensions. Generally speaking, I regard > GHC as a "laboratory" in which to test ideas, which militates in favour of > putting things in so that people can try them. Once in they are hard to take > out again (linear implicit parameters is a rare exception) because some come > to rely on them. > > If there's anything in particular you need, ask. The main thing that is > scheduled for an overhaul is the "derivable type class" mechanism, for which > Pedro is working on a replacemement. > > Simon > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell- > | users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Permjacov Evgeniy > | Sent: 10 December 2010 19:42 > | To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > | Subject: Type families status > | > | Is it safe to consider type families and associated type families > | extensions for ghc as stable ? Wich related extensions (flexible > | contexts, undecidable instanses and so on) may be deprecated or changed > | in near (2-3 years) future and wich may not? > | > | _______________________________________________ > | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > | Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users