Yuras Shumovich <shumovi...@gmail.com> writes: > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > Thanks for your comments Yuras!
>> * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the >> status quo? > > Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so formalizing it > is a win in any case. > Good to hear. >> * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if >> anything? > > The proposed process overlaps with the Language Committee powers. In > theory the Committee works on language standard, but de facto Haskell > is GHC/Haskell and GHC/Haskell is Haskell. Adding new extension to GHC > adds new extension to Haskell. So I'd like the process to enforce > separation between experimental extensions (not recommended in > production code) and language improvements. I'd like the process to > specify how the GHC Committee is going to communicate and share powers > with the Language Committee. > To clarify I think Language Committee here refers to the Haskell Prime committee, right? I think these two bodies really do serve different purposes. Historically the Haskell Prime committee has been quite conservative in the sorts of changes that they standardized; as far as I know almost all of them come from a compiler. I would imagine that the GHC Committee would be a gate-keeper for proposals entering GHC and only some time later, when the semantics and utility of the extension are well-understood, would the Haskell Prime committee consider introducing it to the Report. As far as I understand it, this is historically how things have worked in the past, and I don't think this new process would change that. Of course, let me know if I'm off-base here. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
