Starting point for new standard?

Hi all, out of curiosity, what'll be the starting point for the next Haskell report? I suppose Haskell 2010 plus the additional "No Datatype Contexts" change accepted by the old Haskell Language committee in early 2011 (see https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_2010#Additional_change )? Best regards

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?

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?

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: Starting point for new standard?

Hello Christian, On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Christian Siefkes wrote: > Hi all, > > out of curiosity, what'll be the starting point for the next Haskell report? > I suppose Haskell 2010 plus the additional "No Datatype Contexts" change > accepted by the old Haskell