RE: A question about run-time errors when class members are undefined

Anthony You may be interested in Carlos Camarao’s interesting work. For a long time now he has advocated (in effect) making each function into its own type class, rather that grouping them into classes. Perhaps that is in line with your thinking. https://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~camarao/

RE: Quo vadis?

| That sounds like we're stuck with the committee we have. In that case, | Simon, could you at least pull some strings to have the actual Haskell | Report placed in the same repository? Sounds like a good plan. If the haskell-prime committee agreed to do this, and it's only a matter of doing

RE: Quo vadis?

I think the difficulty has always been in finding enough people who are * Well-informed and well-qualified * Willing to spend the time to standardise language features GHC does not help the situation: it's a de-facto standard, which reduces the incentives to spend time in standardisation. I

Haskell Report 2010: pattern bindings

Thanks Jose. The other issue I have in mind is that of pattern bindings. Currently in the 2010 Haskell Report * The text on the monomorphism restriction (4.5.5) refers to “simple pattern bindings”. * It

The Haskell Report: who maintains it?

Friends Does anyone know who, if anyone, feels responsible for committing updates to the Haskell 2010 Report? Who even has commit rights? There’s Frank’s pull request below, and I have another important typo to fix. Thanks Simon From: Frank Steffahn [mailto:notificati...@github.com] Sent:

RE: Remove eq and show from num class

Good summary Herbert. It'd be great to have it as a page on haskell.org, rather than just in soon-lost email. Simon | -Original Message- | From: Haskell-prime [mailto:haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf | Of Herbert Valerio Riedel | Sent: 08 September 2017 09:43 | To: Anthony