Or more strongly : language extensions explicitly articulating which fancy
features are enabled in a given module makes code more reason-able!
And has made evolving code styles much easier to learn
I still remember when having a toplevel -fglasgow-extensions was a thing,
and I personally only star
I personally think this should be in scope. And indeed the Haskell 2010 Report
does codify several extensions in Section 12.3.
Richard
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:57 PM, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
>
> Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow
> the extension, but using it rem
Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow
the extension, but using it remains optional.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
