FWIW, I am forgoing functional dependencies and going straight to type
families/associated types in jhc. They are easier to implement and
much cleaner IMHO.
John
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I think type families are here to stay.
>
> There is no formal policy about GHC extensions. Generally speaking, I regard
> GHC as a "laboratory" in which to test ideas, which militates in favour of
> putting things in so that people can try them. Once in they are hard to take
> out again (linear implicit parameters is a rare exception) because some come
> to rely on them.
>
> If there's anything in particular you need, ask. The main thing that is
> scheduled for an overhaul is the "derivable type class" mechanism, for which
> Pedro is working on a replacemement.
>
> Simon
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: [email protected] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
> | [email protected]] On Behalf Of Permjacov Evgeniy
> | Sent: 10 December 2010 19:42
> | To: [email protected]
> | Subject: Type families status
> |
> | Is it safe to consider type families and associated type families
> | extensions for ghc as stable ? Wich related extensions (flexible
> | contexts, undecidable instanses and so on) may be deprecated or changed
> | in near (2-3 years) future and wich may not?
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> | [email protected]
> | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
