On 21.01.2011, at 03:12, Ian Lynagh wrote:
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?
I agree that new language features is required to make Haskell a
research platform. So it would be awkward to try to stop people from
adding new language features. I don't mind if highly experimental
language features come in many varieties (i.e. with fine-grained
control about what is allowed).
I'm more concerned about standard extensions that many (even most)
people use somewhere in their projects. I get the feeling that these
get split up into too many individual language features which will
make it difficult for other compilers to implement the extension and
the switched-off extension correctly. Haskell 2010 is going into the
right direction in making some of these features mandatory which means
that they become language features that you can't switch them off
anymore. This makes it more likely that future compilers can implement
a comprehensive Haskell language. So yes, less fine-grained control
for features people use often.
The layout rule seems to be one extension that can go into the report
(both 98 and 2010) without breaking any program. If this is really so,
then I think it is easiest for compiler writer and users if such a
change is made to the report. I think only very few language features
qualify for going directly into the reports since most of them can
break programs.
Hope this clarifies my opinion,
Cheers,
Axel
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
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
