> Fair enough (although I'd say "cautious", rather than "pessimistic"
> :-). I just think we should have a lot more experience with dependent
> types in Haskell (by adding it as an experimental feature to one of
> the existing Haskell systems, and having people play with it for a
> while) before it would be appropriate to push for it going into the
> Haskell standard.
Yes, it definitely needs more experimentation. But I think some
form will dependent types should be seriously considered for
Haskell-2. It might not be full dependence which makes type checking,
but some simpler version.
> I'm curious: how many people have actually written a program in
> Cayenne?
50?
> How many people have written programs that made significant
> use of the dependent typing?
Well, I think one of the few reasons to use Cayenne is to try
out the dependent types. I don't know what you consider
significant.
> Has anybody tried to teach a programming
> class using Cayenne?
Not a regular programming class that I know of. But it has been
used teaching logic (or at least a very similar language) and
at the FP summer school in Portugal.
-- Lennart
