John Goerzen wrote:
There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell
standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there
is any effort being done in this direction presently.
I think an updated standard is overdue. I find it difficult anymore to
write any but
On 7/23/05, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:36 +0200, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
>
> > Haskell is beautiful, but it does have its warts. A Haskell 2.0 could
> > incorporate some non-backwards-compatible changes which would make
> > things a bit nicer.
> > There are
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:36 +0200, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> Haskell is beautiful, but it does have its warts. A Haskell 2.0 could
> incorporate some non-backwards-compatible changes which would make
> things a bit nicer.
> There are tons of useful extensions in GHC which should be included.
> >Fr
On 7/20/05, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell
> standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there
> is any effort being done in this direction presently.
>
> I think an updated standard is overdue. I fin
G'day all.
Quoting Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even if "undecidable instances" was standardized, would we want it
> turned on by default? I am trying to write "real" programs in Haskell
> and I have never even comtemplated using undecidable instances.
There's only one situation where I've
On 7/20/05, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell
> standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there
> is any effort being done in this direction presently.
>
> I think an updated standard is overdue. I fin
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 09:39 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> In fact there's a well established way to express the results of such an
> exercise: an Addendum to the Report. Two of the things you mention
> here already are Addenda
> http://haskell.org/definition/
> namely FFI and hierarch
| I think an updated standard is overdue. I find it difficult anymore
to
| write any but the most trivial of programs using pure Haskell 98.
Some
| notable, and widely-used, features developed since then include:
|
| * Overlapping instances
| * FFI
| * Hierarchical namespace
| * Undecidable i
(oops, forgot to cc to the list)
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Wednesday, July 20, 2005, 10:14:23 PM, you wrote:
>
> JG> It has been awhile since I wrote a Haskell program that can
compile in
> JG> pure Haskell 98 mode. I think it would benefit everyone if a more
> JG> up-to-date st
Hello John,
Wednesday, July 20, 2005, 10:14:23 PM, you wrote:
JG> It has been awhile since I wrote a Haskell program that can compile in
JG> pure Haskell 98 mode. I think it would benefit everyone if a more
JG> up-to-date standard were made available.
imho, there is an unofficial standard made
On 20-Jul-2005, David Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can contribute some experience from commercial standardization efforts.
> ANSI, IEEE, and ISO standards require re-ballotting every five years,
> otherwise the standards lapse. Reballotting may or may not be accompanied
> by changes in
John Goerzen writes:
There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell
standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there
is any effort being done in this direction presently.
I know that some people would like to hold off on such a process until
their fav
There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell
standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there
is any effort being done in this direction presently.
I think an updated standard is overdue. I find it difficult anymore to
write any but the most trivial of pr
13 matches
Mail list logo
