Hello, On 10/16/07, apfelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Will wrote: > > Could someone please summarize the current status and planned time > > line for Haskell'? > > John Launchbury wrote: > > Up to now, the Haskell' effort has been mostly about exploring the > > possibilities, to find out what could be in Haskell', and to scope out > > what it might mean. We've now reached the stage where we want to do the > > opposite, namely trying to pin down what we definitely want to have in > > the standard, and what it should look like in detail. > > There's still a major technical obstacle, namely functional > dependencies vs associated type synonyms . Some functionality for > programming in the type system is needed for Haskell' but fundeps are > too tricky to get powerful and sound at the same time. The problem with > their promising alternative of associated type synonyms is that they're > very young with their first official release being the upcoming GHC 6.8 > . So, they have to stand some test of time before Haskell' can pick one > of the two (probably the latter).
I am not aware of any soundness problems related to functional dependencies---could you give an example? -Iavor _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime