On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:05:41PM +0000, Gábor Lehel wrote: > Well, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to just bake "what GHC does at > this moment" (for any particular extension) into the standard without > really thinking about it. Even then, you have to figure out, in great > detail, what GHC does, and write it all down! That's not negligible > effort, either.
And that is the core of the problem. The standard isn't just a list of approved features. It needs to describe them in such detail that a programmer can tell, from the Report alone, whether a particular program is legal, and if so what it's supposed to do. We don't have that level of description for these extensions, and creating it will be a lot of hard work. Relying on "what GHC does at the moment" has obvious risks for programmers, it also puts an unfair responsibility on GHC itself. How can they improve a feature if it's current implementation is the "standard"? _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
