On 05/10/2018 18:05, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-prime wrote:
If we want to change that, the first thing is to build a case that greater standardisation is not just an "abstract good" that we all subscribe to, but something whose lack is holding us back.
To pick an example, I'm left wondering if we can achieve a minimal GADT specification that doesn't have to stay too stable in the presence of extensions. Changes in its behaviour would need documenting though and documenting the behaviour of inference is notoriously difficult at present.
While I have some ideas about documenting inference, I remain as infamously low on energy as ever - I'm not up to trying it with Haskell2010, let alone GHC, and I wouldn't want to make a business case for someone else trying it yet! I think it's a problem that sooner or later standardised Haskell will need to address though: we're a long way past the "Hindley-Milner plus simple, well-behaved constraints that don't need annotations" approach that typeclasses helped push the limits of.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
