Agreed - the appropriate means for specifying the type system is
something I'm not sure we have a truly good answer for at this point
alas. We're way past being able to rely on an informal "H-M +
constraints from typeclasses" style description if we want to describe
even extensions that have been around 15+ years.
(I am not on the committee etc etc, just have spent much time pondering
related issues!)
On 22/04/2016 20:49, Andres Loeh wrote:
Hi.
I've been talking to Herbert from time to time, and I know he's having
a draft announcement lying around, and is still planning on properly
starting the process soon, and has (this is my opinion, not his) just
been falling into the trap of waiting for a "good moment" which then
never comes.
I'm personally still eager to get the discussions about a new standard started.
While it's true that the old Haskell Prime committee has been doing
good work in creating some sort of catalogue of issues and extensions
at the time, it's still far from proper standardization. And indeed, I
think the bulk of the work that goes into a new standard in my opinon
is to work out all the corner cases and the actual specification of
the extensions. It's less important which ones ultimately go in or
stay out, but actually specfiying them properly is already going to be
a good step forward.
Cheers,
Andres
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:55 PM, José Manuel Calderón Trilla
<j...@jmct.cc> wrote:
Hi Richard,
As a concrete suggestion, I wonder if we should have two goals:
1. Write down an updated standard for Haskell.
2. Write down pre-standards for several extensions.
I agree with both of these. It may even be useful to use goal 2 as a
stepping stone to determine what extensions should receive the extra
attention necessary (if any) to be part of goal 1. Were you thinking
that these pre-standards would look something like Mark Jones's
'Typing Haskell in Haskell' paper? A simplified and clear
specification in the form of a Haskell program would go a long way in
clarifying the meaning of certain extensions. To use your example, you
could imagine an implementation of GADTs that forms the baseline of
what the GADT extension should mean (implementations should accept at
least what this one does). That might be too ambitious though.
A lot of the 'obvious' extensions were discussed that last time the
Haskell Prime committee was active, so a lot of groundwork has been
laid already. The most important step right now is empowering people
to move forward with the process.
Herbert Valerio Riedel is the chair of the reboot, and as such gets
final say on who is a member of the committee and any timeline for
deciding. That being said, I think the aim should be to have the
committee membership decided soon and start discussing what the
priorities should be. I'm partial to suggesting a face to face meeting
at ICFP, but realize that it is difficult for many to attend to ICFP.
Cheers,
José
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Richard Eisenberg <e...@cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
I stand by ready to debate standards and would enjoy moving this process
forward. However, I'm not in a position where I can lead at the moment -- just
too consumed by other tasks right now.
As a concrete suggestion, I wonder if we should have two goals:
1. Write down an updated standard for Haskell.
2. Write down pre-standards for several extensions.
About (2): I'm very sympathetic to a recent post on Haskell-cafe about having formal
descriptions of language extensions. It is not our purview to document GHC. However,
several extensions are in very common use, but might not be quite ready for a language
standard. Chief among these, in my opinion, is GADTs. GADTs are problematic from a
standardization standpoint because it's quite hard to specify when a GADT pattern-match
type-checks, without resorting to discussion of unification variables. For this reason, I
would be hesitant about putting GADTs in a standard. On the other hand, it shouldn't be
too hard to specify some sort of minimum implementation that individual compilers can
build on. I'm calling such a description a "pre-standard".
Thoughts?
Richard
On Apr 21, 2016, at 5:22 PM, José Manuel Calderón Trilla <j...@jmct.cc> wrote:
Hello all,
I'm curious if there is any progress on the reboot of the Haskell
Prime committee. It has been six months since the closing of
nominations and there hasn't been any word that I'm aware of. I've
also spoken to a few others that have self-nominated and they too have
not heard any news.
Personally, I feel that a new standard is very important for the
future health of the community. Several threads on the mailing list
and posts on the web, such as one on reddit today [1], show a desire
from the community for a major consolidation effort.
If there is any way that I can help the process along I would be glad
to do so. It would be a shame to allow for the enthusiasm for a new
committee fade away.
Cheers,
José
[1]:
https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4fsuvu/can_we_have_xhaskell2016_which_turns_on_the_most/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
