On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
>
> In the case of the layout "bug", I think it might be worth considering
> going the other way: adjusting the standard with what ghc has always
> done.
Anyone can propose language changes - the process is described here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Process
> I therefore think that keeping the number of extensions
> to a minimum should be a high priority. It seems that the ghc team is
> going overboard with the amount of extensions and their granularity that
> I do not believe that there will ever be another compiler since
> implementing all these extensions is a nightmare. The road of may
> extensions is leading down the road that the Haskell standards aimed to
> avoid: having a single implementation defining what a Haskell program can
> be.
I'm not sure if you're saying there should be fewer new language
features implemented, less fine-grained control over which are enabled,
or something else?
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
