On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > I think it is what the process should change. It makes sense to have > two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, but > it is not the case. Prime committee may accept or reject e.g. GADTs, > but it will change nothing because people will continue using GADTs > regardless, and any feature accepted by the Prime committee will > necessary be compatible with GADTs extension.
I disagree. By the stated goals of the H2020 Committee, if it is successful, then by 2020 it will still for the most part have only standardized ony a _portion_ of the extentions that now exist today. There’s always been a barrier between implementation and standard in the Haskell language, that’s precisely one of the things that _keeps_ it from having become entirely implementation-defined despite the prevelance of extensions. Having two entirely different processes here (though obviously not without communication between the individuals involved) helps maintain that. —Gershom _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
