Or more strongly : language extensions explicitly articulating which fancy features are enabled in a given module makes code more reason-able! And has made evolving code styles much easier to learn
I still remember when having a toplevel -fglasgow-extensions was a thing, and I personally only started to understand various fancy techniques after the tools / features used In a given module had to be explicitly enumerated. Phrased differently: i agree with Richard -Carter On Friday, August 19, 2016, Richard Eisenberg <r...@cs.brynmawr.edu> wrote: > I personally think this should be in scope. And indeed the Haskell 2010 > Report does codify several extensions in Section 12.3. > > Richard > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:57 PM, M Farkas-Dyck <m.farkasd...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow > > the extension, but using it remains optional. > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-prime mailing list > > Haskell-prime@haskell.org <javascript:;> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org <javascript:;> > 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
