Re: [Haskell-cafe] Several default implementations for instance methods

hrm, so youre wanting something even smarter than the MINIMAL pragma stuff, namely depending on which subset of the complementary methods are defined, define this method differently? On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andreas Abel ab...@chalmers.se wrote: Consider the following class for an

Re: Breaking Changes and Long Term Support Haskell

Well said! I do have a small worry that the longer roll out window will be harder to manage given that every thing is done by (outstanding) volunteers. But maybe the answer there is that ghc should do major version releases more frequently :), eg every 9 months instead of every 12!  On

Re: Infrastructure & Communication

Or a phabricator instance ? That might also make sense. On Friday, April 29, 2016, Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:56:51PM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > > One benefit I see from using GitHub is that this way would we be closer > > to the Haskell

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 AM Takenobu Tani wrote: > Hi Prime, > > This is additional information to organize my brain. > > This issue also occurs in single thread. > Especially, when they have side effects. > >seq exp1 exp2 > > Because compiler can always re-order

Re: Chairship / responsibility

On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Henrik Nilsson wrote: > Hi all, > > > It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked > > to be on the committee, and the fact that this question was already > > answer was a factor in my decision to try to help.

Re: Scope of committee (can we do *new* things?)

On Friday, May 13, 2016, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > I strongly agree with all the points Andres makes here: > - Focus on existing extensions > - Permit discussion and even modification of existing behavior > - Allow possibility of discussing new behavior > - Strive hard

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: The GADT debate

On Sunday, May 8, 2016, 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

Re: Limber separators

I worry that this thread is turning into a bit of bike shed before we have a good sense of what construction tools we have on hand! One side consideration we might want to keep in mind is what spaces of parser tech can work off the shelf in various juxtapositions of code and features. The more

Re: Infrastructure & Communication

Yes, persistent commenting / threading somehow on some tool. And I trust Herbert's judgement On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Vitaly Bragilevsky wrote: > The third one here. I think that process decisions can be made by chairman > alone without calling votes, that's organizing

Re: Limber separators

On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I worry that this thread is turning into a bit of bike shed before we have > a good sense of what construction tools we have on hand! > > One side consideration we might want to keep in m

Re: Limber separators

On Saturday, May 7, 2016, wren romano wrote: > 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

Re: The GADT debate

On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Gershom B wrote: > On May 7, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM, wren romano (w...@community.haskell.org > ) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There's been some discussion about whether to consider including GADTs > > in the new report, but it's been mixed

Re: Multiple imports on a single line

likewise, why not use semicolon? per se we already can do mulitple lines on a single line via semicolon :) On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:18:13PM +0200, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev > wrote: > > Hello! > > > > What do you

Re: Step-by-step guide for creating a new proposal

I guess the question is what is the definition of issue in that context? Whatever the specifics, I think if you either a) privately talk with a memeber of the committee about what you intend to do and they are willing to "co own" / "sponsor it", and this is indicated in the pr summary or the

Re: Step-by-step guide for creating a new proposal

mittee. > + If you want to create entirely new issue, privately talk with member of > the > + committee or ask on haskell-prime mailing list. > > I think that non-member will understand pre-process :) > > Regards, > Takenobu > > > 2016-10-06 23:38 GMT+09:00

Re: Step-by-step guide for creating a new proposal

I'll have some down time at the airport this afternoon and see about dealing with this On Friday, October 7, 2016, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good to me unless anyone objects or has an alternative? > > On Friday, October 7, 2016, Takenobu

Re: Step-by-step guide for creating a new proposal

committee members] > * PR by a committee member > > (3) open discussion on github [everyone] > * conservation on the PR > > For me, (1) is now clear. > If it's written somewhere, it's easy for non-committee members to > understand the total proposal process:) > > &g

Re: Meet up at ICFP?

yeah, i couldn't make it too :( On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Mario Blažević wrote: > On 2016-09-14 02:17 PM, José Manuel Calderón Trilla wrote: > >> Richard has also volunteered to act as secretary for the meeting so >> that the minutes of the meeting can be posted.

Re: Default module header `module Main where`

as a guideline what you say is true, and at least in this case as the motivation is user focused it should be validated thusly :) On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mario Blažević wrote: > On 2017-05-16 10:18 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> a very small proposal to

Re: Haskell Prime Meeting at ICFP (Was: Whose gonna be at icfp?)

There's food sans line near c5 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:23 AM Henrik Nilsson < henrik.nils...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > Reminder: Haskell' is meeting lunchtime today, so shortly after 12:30. > > We now, thank to Jeremy Gibbons, also have a room: C5. > > So grab lunch and then go to

Re: Remove eq and show from num class

I mostly wanted to confirm that we in fact will actually say yes before doing the formal writtingup :) On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John Wiegley wrote: > > "AC" == Anthony Clayden writes: > > AC> All yays from committee members please

Re: Shall the Haskell Report remain in LaTeX?

I personally kinda enjoy latex. Granted that's assuming it's well written :) On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:41 PM Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > Hello *, > > On 2017-09-08 at 00:46:52 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote: > > [...] > > >> If the report was written in reStructuredText we

Remove eq and show from num class

All yays from committee members please reply with yes to this email :) -Carter ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: Remove eq and show from num class

well sure, i'm happy to write the 3 line diff, but because of the sheer unambiguity of this i'd rather get the votes on email before botthering to write the diff, at which point the main question is whether i wrote the diff correctly please say yes or no. its quite easy with email . i'm not

Re: Whose gonna be at icfp?

Agreed. Hence let's just have something less structured than the GitHub flow ... just any doc will do. Also it'd be simpler to have just one tool for coms. On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:55 PM Mario Blažević <blama...@ciktel.net> wrote: > On 2017-08-25 06:48 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote:

Re: Whose gonna be at icfp?

Either way, see y'all in oxford On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. Hence let's just have something less structured than the GitHub > flow ... just any doc will do. Also it'd be simpler to have just one tool > for coms.

Re: Whose gonna be at icfp?

Missing Conall's talk seems like a terrible time to meet :( On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:54 AM Henrik Nilsson < henrik.nils...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/05/2017 10:27 AM, Mario Blazevic wrote: > > I thought John said 4:40 today. You missed Andres Löh. > > Must have missed that.

Re: Shall the Haskell Report remain in LaTeX?

agreed On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:37 AM, John Wiegley wrote: > > "DS" == Doaitse Swierstra writes: > > SD> The good thing about laTeX is that out of all the candidates it is the > SD> most likely one to still work 40 years from now, > > +1 from

Re: Report merged, steps to follow

sounds good to me, we can always tweak stuff as needed On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:04 AM Mario Blažević wrote: > Four weeks having passed since the previous discussion with no > objections, I have now merged the content of the Haskell Report > > from https://github.com/haskell/haskell-report > >

Re: A question about run-time errors when class members are undefined

Carlos, local scoping for type classes is flat out not gonna happen in the haskell language standard any time soon. if you want to make a case for it, demonstrate its utility, this mailing list isn't for that. Especially for something that fundamentally changes the programming model of the

Re: A question about run-time errors when class members are undefined

th a new > ambiguity rule, depending on the context (or type) where (f x) is used. > > Kind regards, > > Carlos > > Em 2018-10-10 12:52, Carter Schonwald escreveu: > > Carlos, local scoping for type classes is flat out not gonna happen in > > the hask

Re: Quo vadis?

agreed... i think theres still room for the current for the current committee to succeed (though depending on ambitions it should maybe slide into being 2022 standard perhaps?) I cant speak for other members, but i'm still hopeful about putting together some of the language improvements to the

Re: Helium II

i'm slowly prepping some stuff for ghc and the committee, though i can't say about the general action. I do think some stuff i've got planned should make its way in, i cant speak for other folks etc etc On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:54 AM Anthony Clayden < anthony_clay...@clear.net.nz> wrote: > On