On 2016-05-04 at 06:48:38 +0200, wren romano wrote: [...]
> Speaking of which, are things like the AMP and FTP under our purview > or are they under the CLC? I tried to clarify in the call-for-nomination and the formation announcement that the library part of the Haskell Report shall be formally under the CL(i)C's purview given their experience with designing and implementing the big AMP/FTP/MFP proposals. In fact, I'd like to think of the (extended) Prime Committee as being composed of two sub-committee's: CLiC & CLaC (i.e. the Core Library Committee and Core Language Committee). This gives each sub-committee a clear focus. Of course, there'll sometimes be interactions (like e.g. language-extensions/features to improve backward compatibility with Haskell2010) between the language and the library part, so CLiC & CLaC will have to talk to each other from time to time. It's also quite possible that CLaC members may pick-up work-items from the CLiC or vice-versa. I know some of you consider the "Prelude" module as being morally a part of the "language" rather than the library. But I'm sure the CLiC will exercise extreme caution when the holy-grail "Prelude" module happens to require adaptations and keep everyone in the loop. Not the least because somebody may have alternative ideas how to achieve the goal differently worth considering. -- hvr _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
