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

] On | Behalf Of wren romano | Sent: 08 May 2016 02:40 | To: haskell-prime@haskell.org List <Haskell-prime@haskell.org> | Subject: Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate | wholesale? | | On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Dominique Devriese | <dominique.devri...@cs.kuleuven.

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel 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 in the call-for-nomination and the

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?

Well said, having coherent location to collect bits per topic so they don't get lost to mailing list thread mists of time is pretty important. I don't care too much as long as it's easy to comment on a topic / ticket and or propose edits. But probably something we should front load doing. On

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

There are many points I'd like to make in this discussion, but this one screams out the loudest: This thread is spiraling a bit out of control. I've seen useful conversations around many different extensions in here, but these conversations are sometimes only tangentially related. I'd

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

Hi all, > For example, much as I love GADTs and would be all for them being > added in some future language report, I do not feel they should be > added this time around. (Though I emphatically and wholeheartedly > support adding GADTSyntax.) In my opinion, GADTs is one of the most important

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

| For example, much as I love GADTs and would be all for them being added | in some future language report, I do not feel they should be added this | time around. (Though I emphatically and wholeheartedly support adding | GADTSyntax.) The primary reason being that while the semantics of the |

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

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 in the call-for-nomination and the formation announcement that the library part of the Haskell Report shall be

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

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 in combination with several other language extensions) and the journal version of the OutsideIn(X)

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 >

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

Augustsson, Lennart > Cc: John Wiegley; haskell-prime@haskell.org > Subject: Re: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale? > > On 2016-05-03 at 10:36:31 +0200, Augustsson, Lennart wrote: > > > I'd say there are extensions we should just adopt wholesale, bu

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

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

: Haskell-prime [mailto:haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of John Wiegley Sent: 02 May 2016 23:58 To: haskell-prime@haskell.org Subject: Are there GHC extensions we'd like to incorporate wholesale? I wonder if there are GHC extensions we'd like to promote as features in the next report

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

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

On 02/05/2016, Cale Gibbard wrote: > Are there extensions which ought to stop being extensions? > It may also be best to leave the answer up to the implementations. It is much > easier to argue for something like that once the extension has been on by > default in GHC and all

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

This question implicitly has two parts: 1) Are there GHC extensions which the Report ought to describe in their entirety? To this question, I would say "yes" - pretty much anything which can be done in that direction will be productive, it's more a question of what people are willing to put the

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

I agree that GHC extensions should be the starting point for new additions, as changes to the report should be based on established implementations (to ensure that changes are implementable and to ensure that they work out well for users). 1) background reading There were a few interesting

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

IMO, the committee should not focus on most these at the moment, because there are easier wins to be had - most of the open proposed ones have problems that make the discussion veer from "Very Obvious" to "Not so obvious". I know they're popular, but doing this is going to require a lot more

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

Doh, left off MultiParamTypeClasses from the list in the email. Though, as Richard mentions, apparently this should be carefully considered with regards to coherence. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Michael Sloan wrote: > In this issue on the hpack tracker, I describe my

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

In this issue on the hpack tracker, I describe my swing at coming up with a conservative set of extensions: https://github.com/sol/hpack/issues/94 The list I ended up with is: LambdaCase, GADTSyntax, ScopedTypeVariables, TupleSections, BangPatterns, FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts,

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

Great questions. Here's my take: For something to be incorporated into the standard, we'd need to be able to give a concrete, precise description of how the extension changes the set of correct Haskell programs. We also need to consider how the extension changes properties of the language,

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

One objective would be to compile the Haskel Platform with near zero extensions. On Monday, May 2, 2016 5:57 PM, 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

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

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 it's hard to imagine a modern Haskell without them. For