On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Claus Reinke <claus.rei...@talk21.com> wrote: ... > joking and bikeshedding aside: > > - Haskell'98 is a fixed standard. Haskell'98 (revised) is a revised version > of > the same standard. The discussion on what is in either is over. Unless > someone wants to start and edit a new revision of Haskell'98. Or someone > wants to write about experience with and criticism of the existing > standards. > None of which seems to relate to this thread's subject, though either > would > fit into other threads on this mailing list. > > - the UHC announcement states (emphasis added): "UHC supports _almost all_ > Haskell98 features plus many experimental extensions". > Once they start claiming to have a full Haskell'98 implementation, > everybody can start filing bug reports. Actually, you can start doing > that now as they explicitly relate UHC to Haskell'98, not Haskell, > not Haskell'. But once you've filed a bug report about a deviation > from the version of the standard being referred to, it is up to them. > > - there are one or two more interesting things to discuss about UHC. > That would require some actual work to find out more about it. > > - implementing a Haskell compiler requires a lot of work. So does > detailing language extensions, to say nothing about providing supporting > evidence for suggested language extensions by actually implementing them > side-by-side with Haskell's other > features. > - anyone who gets through the work of implementing something, > let alone a Haskell compiler, to the stage of releasing/announcing > it, is likely looking forward to getting feedback on their work. > > In reality, the only feedback most projects get is from bug reports > (and not always those), web access logs, and rumours on blogs > or irc. One really, really, does not need one's project name to be used > for other unrelated entertainment as well. > > May I respectfully suggest that further postings under _this_ subject give > something back to the UHC implementers, in the form of investing some actual > work and time to find out about the fruits of their work? > > Claus
I'd like to second this email. I found the ehc/uhc project very interesting when I was looking at it a year or two ago, and I'm a little distressed that this thread has been so unproductive and basically hostile. I was hoping that comments would be more substantive, rather than carping about what a maintainer plans on adding (and thereby triggering an apparent holy war). For example, I expected someone to ask why it was not cabalized since that would help distribution; to which a developer could respond that it could well be except source files need to be preprocessed with the grammar-conversion tool (UUAGC?) and Cabal doesn't support that like it does alex/happy; to which someone might propose a hack-around using GHC's -Fgetc. option, or maybe someone would go quickly add support to Cabal and we could get started on Cabalizing the various compilers - Er. Not to try to force the discussion in any particular direction or anything... -- gwern _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe