On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:41, John Smith wrote:
There has been a fair amount of discussion, both on this list and
libraries, regarding the Monad class hierarchy. The many on the
libraries list expressed support for the patch at http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4834
, conditional on it
On 04/02/2011 12:08, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
I suggested, and several people +1'd, that if we are making disruptive
changes to the standard libraries defined in the
Language Report (especially the Prelude), then we should aim to make a
thorough job of cleaning up all the cruft and
redesigning
John Smith volderm...@hotmail.com asked:
What is the best way out of this deadlock?
My suggestions:
* If possible, make the change optional. As an example, create a second (third,
etc.) Prelude with the new features without abandoning the current Prelude. Let
the user choose the Prelude
On 04/02/2011, at 10:49, Dark Lord wrote:
I thoroughly agree with this. However, in the event that this does not
happen, piecemeal fixes are better than none.
FWIW, I disagree. To put it bluntly, why is repeatedly breaking a lot of code
better than not breaking it at all? Breaking a lot of
On 04/02/2011, at 10:08, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
I suggested, and several people +1'd, that if we are making disruptive
changes to the standard libraries defined in the Language Report (especially
the Prelude), then we should aim to make a thorough job of cleaning up all
the cruft and
Perhaps GHC could be released with two sets of libraries. This would give
people time to experiment without breaking existing code. It would also make
implementing individual changes much easier.
I fully support this. {-# LANGUAGE NewPrelude #-} or something similar would
be wonderful.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/4/11 14:30 , Daniel Peebles wrote:
Perhaps GHC could be released with two sets of libraries. This would
give people time to experiment without breaking existing code. It would
also make implementing individual changes much easier.
