Re: The GADT debate

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote: > Peripherally, this also brings up the notion of type equality, and I'm a bit > fuzzy about how big a chasm there is between what that means in Haskell 2010 > vs more bleeding edge styles, or am I pointing at a

Re: The GADT debate

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > On May 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Gershom B wrote: >> >> an attempt (orthogonal to the prime committee at first) to specify an >> algorithm for inference that is easier to describe and implement than

Re: Limber separators

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Cale Gibbard wrote: > I can't really be the only one here who thinks that this kind of > discussion of extensions to the syntax of Haskell is totally > inappropriate when we have a large number of already implemented > extensions to the language

The GADT debate

Hi all, There's been some discussion about whether to consider including GADTs in the new report, but it's been mixed up with other stuff in the thread on incorporating extensions wholesale, which has unfortunately preempted/preceded the discussion about how to go about having such

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvrie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2016-05-04 at 06:48:38 +0200, wren romano wrote: >> Speaking of which, are things like the AMP and FTP under our purview >> or are they under the CLC? > > I tried to clarify

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Dominique Devriese wrote: > As an outsider, I would like to suggest thinking about MonoLocalBinds. GHC > has a rather convincing story (at least to me) that "(local) let should not > be generalised" (since it becomes problematic

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 >

Re: Chairship / responsibility

> Hi Prime, > > Is there a chair of this committee? Herbert has been acting as such (thank > you!) but doesn't list himself as the chair in the initial announcement. I am > **in no way** trying to change any status quo and am **not** interested in > being chair at the moment, but I just wanted

Re: Infrastructure & Communication

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Mario Blažević wrote: > There are two or three distinct components we need to keep track of: the > draft standard, discussions, and potentially RFCs. > > Discussions can be hosted on this mailing list, on Trac, or as Git > issues. Each

Re: Haskell Prime 2020 committee

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Antonio Nikishaev wrote: >> On 28 Apr 2016, at 21:45, Richard Eisenberg wrote: >> Seems reasonable. I have started the page at >> https://wiki.haskell.org/Language/HaskellPrime > > Should it be under prime.haskell.org instead? >

Re: Language Change Management (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Foltzer wrote: >> Also I'm not sure if there would be less complaints if >> AMP/FTP/MFP/MRP/etc as part of a new Haskell Report would be switched on all >> at once in e.g. `base-5.0`, breaking almost *every* single package out there >> at

Self-nomination

Hello, I'd like to nominate myself for the new Haskell Prime committee. Experience-wise: I've been active on the libraries list for something like a decade. A couple years ago I wrote my "burning bridges" email[1], observing that we've long known certain problems with official/standard Haskell,