The case of WASH is a pity. Architecturally It was more advanced that many recent haskell web frameworks. The package would have been a success with little changes in the DSL syntax.
I suspect that there are many outstanding packages with great ideas abandoned, like WASH 2013/5/5 Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Raphael Gaschignard <dasur...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel like I've seen such "suggestions" in >> GHC errors before. >> >> If so, does that mean there's some sort of mechanism in the compiler >> already in place for such error recognition? Like some simple pattern >> stuff? If not, I think that it might not be bad to consider this stuff >> (misused packaged, changed semantics that create compiler errors), and to >> put something into place for future modifications. This could make it a lot >> easier to deal with unmaintained code. >> > > There's some very limited capability now; the GHC folks are tossing around > ideas for something more general like that. > > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine > associates > allber...@gmail.com > ballb...@sinenomine.net > unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad > http://sinenomine.net > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- Alberto.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
