So it looks like we're stuck at pretty much the same proposals for the
class system.
a) standardize on MPTC and FDs using rules from CHR paper.
b) don't standardize anything, and wait for ATs to take over
c) punt---standardize the library and exact form of FD for that library,
but no more, or map out some longer timeline for this issue.
For a while I thought (a) was the clear choice. The theory has been
worked out, we have a lot of experience using them, and key libraries
depend on them. However, not everyone is convinced by (a) because of
the fear of too early standardization. We may end up with a lot of code
that uses a feature that will eventually be deprecated. There are
perhaps three counterarguments to this point of view:
- We're already in that state. There *is* a lot of Haskell code that
uses FDs, it's just not Haskell 98 code. Whenever ATs take over, we'll
still have to deal with this code.
- It may be that all uses of MPTCs/FDs may be subsumed by ATs, and in
fact there is (or will be) some automatic way of translating FD code to
AT code.
- It may not be all bad for a future Haskell standard to include both
ATs and FDs. Certainly more complicated, but I haven't seen any evidence
that these features interfere with eachother.
Are there any merits to these counterarguments?
More generally, our discussion about the class system seems to be
stalled. How should we to come to a decision?
--- Stephanie
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org//mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
