Hello all,
A few weeks ago, I opened up a discussion about a particular GHC bug, #9590.
This bug is concerned with the future of the Haskell98 and Haskell2010
packages, which try to embody their two respective Haskell standards.
They do this by shipping the 'exact library specification
I support this direction. But I disagree with one statement you've made:
On Nov 18, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Austin Seipp aus...@well-typed.com wrote:
To be clear: GHC can still typecheck, compile, and efficiently execute
Haskell 2010 code. It is merely the distribution of compatible
packages that
You're right, and something like that would be included. (I actually
meant GHC can still literally accept perfectly valid Haskell2010 code
in a syntactical sense; instances are part what I was referring to as
'compatible packages')
Actually, this reminds me of something SimonPJ mentioned
I think you're right, and that's a strong reason to come up with an update
to the Haskell Report. Include in it, at least:
-- Big-ticket items
0. Monoid
1. Foldable, Traversable
2. Applicative
3. Applicative = Monad
-- side notes
4. inits = map reverse . scanl (flip (:)) [] -- efficiency—not
RebindableSyntax
I thought this would work, but people seemed pretty sure we would need to do
more work than RebindableSyntax to get everything in place.
--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph
signature.asc
