2012/11/30 Gábor Lehel :
> Well, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to just bake "what GHC
> does at this moment" (for any particular extension) into the
> standard without really thinking about it. Even then, you have
> to figure out, in great detail, what GHC does, and write it
> all down! That's
2012/12/1 Tijn van der Zant :
> I think that there is more to take into account.
> Haskell is growing as a language that people use to solve scientific and
> business problems. It is starting to become more of a working language,
> which is a very good thing of course. But this also means that Hask
* Simon Peyton-Jones [2012-11-30 16:36:01+]
> Why not? I don't think it's laziness or selfishness; just look at how
> helpful people are on the mailing list. Rather, I am guessing that
> it's a subconscious assessment of cost/benefit. The cost is certainly
> significant, and (unlike a quick
* Tijn van der Zant [2012-12-01 10:00:31+0100]
> Why do I need to know about pragmas if it is already difficult to
> learn the language?
Exactly. In an ideal world, where the language standard corresponds to
what people perceive as being standard, beginners shouldn't know or care
about pragmas, w
* Henning Thielemann [2012-12-01 00:37:12+0100]
> We should have multiple implementations before standardization.
Alternative implementations already exist for lots of extenstions, see
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/HaskellExtensions
Roman
___
Hi All,
I think that there is more to take into account.
Haskell is growing as a language that people use to solve scientific and
business problems. It is starting to become more of a working language,
which is a very good thing of course. But this also means that Haskell
should accommodate the pe
