I have to agree with Manuel. I write a lot of Haskell code.
People even pay me to do it. I usually stay with Haskell-98,
and I don't think it's a great hardship. Sure, there's fancy
stuff I can't do then, but I'd much rather have a well understood
somewhat less powerful language.
I think the right way forward is more along the lines of
associated type and type level functions rather than
MPTC and FDs.
-- Lennart
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Claus Reinke:
however, the underlying problem is not limited to MPTCs, and FDs
are not the only attempt to tackle the problem. so I agree with Isaac:
getting a handle on this issue is imperative for Haskell', because it will
be the only way forward when trying to standardize at least those of
the many extensions that have been around longer than the previous
standard Haskell 98. and if Haskell' fails to do this, it fails.
Please keep things in perspective:
(A) It's not as if every interesting program (or even the majority of
interesting programs) use(s) MPTCs.
(B) I don't think the time for which an extension has been around is
particularly relevant. One of the big selling points of Haskell is that
it's quite well defined, and hence, its semantics is fairly well
understood and sane - sure, there are dark corners, but compared to
other languages of the same size, we are in good shape. If we include
half-baked features, we weaken the standard.
In fact, it's quite worrying that FDs have been around for so long and
still resisted a thorough understanding.
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
