On Oct 2, 2009, at 18:46 , Edward Kmett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM, John A. De Goes <j...@n-brain.net> wrote:On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Curt Sampson wrote:And as far as something like dealing with a changing language and libraries, the mainstream already has well-established and popular techniques for doing just: agile development. A project manager's worst nightmare:"Sorry boss, but we're just not going to be able to meet that deadline, because, well, a language extension we were using was dropped from the language, and the syntax for some core operators was changed. Not only is our code broken, but many of the libraries we were using are broken. Don't worry, though, we're 'agile', so our unit tests will tell us when our code is working again."While I agree that it probably isn't the right idea to say that we are Agile, so it is safe for us to build on a foundation that is constantly shifting underneath us, this same argument came up from Credit Suisse regarding the standardization of Haskell' at ICFP 06. At the time, as I recall, they were limiting themselves to Haskell 98 + Addenda.
I'm wondering if the referent here is to the notion that associated types will replace functional dependencies. As I understand it, it's nowhere near being possible and possibly still an area of active research.
Other than that, linear implicit parameters were removed from GHC; an experimental (never standardized, or even proposed for a standard) feature that was never widely used (or used at all?). There wasn't any outcry that I recall when they went away.
-- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
