Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

On 02/05/2016, Cale Gibbard wrote: > This question implicitly has two parts: > > 1) Are there GHC extensions which the Report ought to describe in their > entirety? ... > > 2) Are there extensions which ought to stop being extensions? ... I agree here, except as noted in my

Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Andres Loeh wrote: > Hi. > > Just to add a few general points. There are different dimensions to > evaluate GHC extensions for inclusion in the standard, and just making > lists does not really reflect that. The two most important ones, I >

[Haskell] Call for Papers: OCL and Textual Modeling Tools and Textual Model Transformations (OCL 2016) - Submit Your Paper Until July 17, 2016

(Apologies for duplicates) CALL FOR PAPERS 16th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modeling Co-located with ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2016) October 2-4, 2016, Saint-Malo, France

Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

Hello, I think it'd be great to get started by specifying a few simple extensions, such as the ones Lennart listed. Even though they are very well understood, and we have text about them in the GHC manual, we'd still have to think of how to integrate their descriptions with the rest of the

RE: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

Then I suggest we keep EmptyDataDecls! -Original Message- From: Herbert Valerio Riedel [mailto:hvrie...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 May 2016 09:50 To: Augustsson, Lennart Cc: John Wiegley; haskell-prime@haskell.org Subject: Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale? On

RE: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

I'd say there are extensions we should just adopt wholesale, but they are all of a very simple syntactic kind. E.g., EmptyDataDecls, ExplicitNamespaces, KindSignatures(?), NamedFieldPuns (used be part of Haskell), RecordWildcards(?), TupleSections, TypeOperators. -Original Message-

RE: Chairship / responsibility

| It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked to | be on the committee, and the fact that this question was already answer | was a factor in my decision to try to help. Being the committee chair | is less a position of power, and more a position of responsibility. I |

Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

On 2016-05-03 at 00:57:38 +0200, John Wiegley wrote: > I wonder if there are GHC extensions we'd like to promote as features > in the next report, as a starting point for discussing new additions. > > There are a few GHC features that have become part of the regular > Haskell landscape, such that

Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale?

Hi. Just to add a few general points. There are different dimensions to evaluate GHC extensions for inclusion in the standard, and just making lists does not really reflect that. The two most important ones, I think, are: 1. Whether we think they're actually a good idea or not. 2. Whether we