I'm hereby self-nominating for the Haskell' commitee. The main reason
I'm applying is because I'm afraid that the commitee might disband like
the previous one. If there are enough members already, feel free to
ignore my nomination.
That being said, here are my qualifications:
I started prog
On 15-10-22 09:29 AM, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:
...
1) What is the master plan, and where is it documented, even if this
document is not up to the standard of a proposal? What is the final
target, and when might we expect it to be reached? What is in the
pipeline after MRP?
Relatedly, guidance o
On 04/29/2016 07:15 AM, Francesco Ariis wrote:
Hello,
personally I would be more likely to read/participate in the
discussions if such discussions were hosted here or on Trac rather
than Github.
There are two or three distinct components we need to keep track
of: the draft standard, d
On 16-04-29 09:22 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
I think the general interplay between mailing lists / wiki pages /
Trac issues that GHC uses works well. Specifically:
- Mailing list for routine communication.
- Trac tickets / Git issues / Phab something-or-other for discussion on a
specific prop
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. Thanks Richard!
Thanks from all of us who can't attend as well. Please do post the minutes!
On 2016-10-04 01:09 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
Now that we've started with a few proposal, I am realizing that I have
no idea how to proceed from here. In particular:
1. How would I request I proposal to be rejected
2. How would I request that a proposal be accepted
I don't know if we
On 2016-10-12 12:41 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
it seems that there isn't much controversy over the TupleSections
propsal, so I'd like to move the we accept it for the next language
standard.
Does anyone have any objections?
I have no objection to the proposal in the abstract, but I don
On 2016-11-01 05:55 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
done:
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/13
I did not copy the detailed description from the GHC manual to the
proposal yet. Is it ok to defer that until the proposal has been
approved, or at least until approval is known to be likely?
I se
On 2017-05-16 10:18 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
I like it, but it should probably be a GHC proposal first. I don't
think Haskell' is supposed to make any change to the standard that
hasn't been already implemented and tested. In this
On 19/05/17 07:12 PM, Francesco Ariis wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I thought about this. But I fear that this will require a language
extension or flag, and then the developers (quite rightly) say that it
does not pull its weight of supporting both var
On 2017-05-24 10:28 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I've ended up uncertain, so I'll just throw it out there: are unused
value warnings affected by this proposal?
that is a very good point, thanks for raising it. I have two different
answers:
A) You are right. Everything is exported, so without an
On 2017-08-25 06:48 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
I'll be this time! :)
We should coord a committee catch-up at icfp.
Also I would like to propose we shift back to email based discussion.
There's still the valid and important need of then taking the
discussion and revisions into a new standard.
On 2017-09-09 09:40 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Long story short, is everyone ok to stay with (La)TeX, or is there some
compelling reason that would justify migrating to a different
documentation system?
Since nobody said no in the 7 weeks since, I think it's safe to assume
yes. Can we
:39, Mario Blažević wrote:
On 2017-09-09 09:40 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Long story short, is everyone ok to stay with (La)TeX, or is there some
compelling reason that would justify migrating to a different
documentation system?
Since nobody said no in the 7 weeks since, I think it&#
Related to this, whatever happened to the fully-agreed task of copying
the Haskell report LaTeX files over to the RFCs repository?
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2017-September/004319.html
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2017-October/thread.html
https://mail.ha
I could not attend ICFP this year. Has there been any discussion at all
of Haskell 2020 there? If so, can the rest of us get a summary?
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-
On 2018-10-04 09:41 PM, Anthony Clayden wrote:
> There was no Haskell 2020 meeting this year at ICFP. Sadly, interest
seems to have waned here...
Yes that is sad. So either Haskell 2020 won't happen, or it'll be only
minor tweaks over H2010, as that was over H98.
The former seems much more lik
On 2018-10-05 09:10 AM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi,
On 10/05/2018 01:20 PM, Mario Blažević wrote:
I hereby propose we formally disband the present Haskell 2020
committee. Our performance has been so dismal
It has.
And I should apologise in particular: I've just had far less time t
On 2018-10-05 01:05 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
I think the difficulty has always been in finding enough people who are
* Well-informed and well-qualified
* Willing to spend the time to standardise language features
GHC does not help the situation: it's a de-facto standard, which reduces the
On 2018-10-07 11:36 PM, Gershom B wrote:
Mario: as a non-committee member but interested observer, if you
yourself wanted to proceed to put the report in the repo, what
obstacles would stand in your way, and could we clear them out so you
could take charge of that task?
My understanding is th
On 2018-10-07 11:32 PM, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest a candidate with a specific problem,
a specific goal and a possible solution to its problem. So, a modest
proposal:
- Standardise OverloadedStrings as an available-but-disabled feature
- Allow default statemen
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
into https://github.com/haskell/rfcs
To remind everybody again, the point of this move was to enable
adding an act
I hereby officially announce that the RFC for the relaxed dependency
analysis (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/17) has attained the
rarefied status of Last Call. Please take some time within the following
two weeks to vote for or against the proposal, or just leave a comment
to indicate yo
last-minute objection or
amendment to the proposal.
On 2018-11-04 8:31 p.m., Mario Blažević wrote:
I hereby officially announce that the RFC for the relaxed dependency
analysis (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/17) has attained the
rarefied status of Last Call. Please take some time withi
Break out the champagne, because the first Haskell 2020 proposal
has been fully merged [1]. By fully merged, I mean that the text of the
report has been updated, so we have accomplished something material.
Should the Haskell 2020 commitee agree so, we now have the option to
declare the Hask
On 2018-11-28 2:17 a.m., Jurriaan Hage wrote:
Dear all,
We’ve been active since September making the Helium compiler more Haskell 2010
compliant.
In particular, we have a branch with support for Haskell 2010 type classes, a
branch that
supports import/export following the standard, and a branc
The very first RFC created (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1), the
Applicative/Monad Proposal, has now reached the Last Call stage. In
order to ground the discussion, I have taken some time to update the
Prelude and the text of the Haskell Report with its effects before the
call. The rend
While you're reviewing AMP, please take a bit of time to also comment on
the related new MonadPlus excise proposal at
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/23
The proposal is very short so it should be an easy decision. Thank you.
On 2018-12-15 6:46 p.m., Mario Blažević wrote:
The very
On 2018-12-18 2:38 a.m., Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Hello Mario et al.,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:17 AM Mario Blažević wrote:
While you're reviewing AMP, please take a bit of time to also comment on
the related new MonadPlus excise proposal at
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/23
On 2018-12-18 7:25 p.m., Doug McIlroy wrote:
I am very glad to see Applicative take its place in the
report: one less mystery in understanding Haskell in the
wild. The following comments pertain to presentation.
Thank you for the comments. I will act on them if we end up accepting
the proposal
A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the
Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on
the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and
MonadOfNoReturn proposals.
This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a glim
Jan 2019, 8:01 pm Mario Blažević <mailto:mblaze...@stilo.com> wrote:
A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the
Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on
the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and
On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
...
I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to
get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed off
the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort involved.
Apologies, for some reason
On 2019-04-06 10:36 p.m., Solomon Ucko wrote:
In the Haskell 1998 & 2010 reports, I found the names of the tokens for
Haskell's lexical structure / syntax / grammar very hard to read, as
they were highly abbreviated. I might get more familiar with them, but
that doesn't help newcomers, like me
On 2019-04-19 12:40 a.m., Gershom B wrote:
I don’t really have a stake in what happens to it. In my opinion at
the very least the domain should point somewhere where there’s a
redirect in place to the old content, or some pointer to it, so links
don’t die :-)
I, for one, was looking up the o
On 2019-04-29 3:54 a.m., 佐藤玄基 wrote:
Hello,
I found that the layout interpretation algorithm in Section 10.3 of
Report 2010
produces parse-error when applied to the following code snippet:
[Snippet 1 : The code that fails to be parsed by Report]
main = print t where { t = s where s = 1 :: Int
On 2019-12-16 1:42 a.m., Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Not sure where to post about this, and it has likely been noted
elsewhere already, but reading through the report I see in Section
3.17.2
I'm not sure either, but one place you could report it is at
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/issues
No gu
37 matches
Mail list logo
