On 2016-05-03 at 00:57:38 +0200, John Wiegley wrote: > I wonder if there are GHC extensions we'd like to promote as features > in the next report, as a starting point for discussing new additions. > > There are a few GHC features that have become part of the regular > Haskell landscape, such that it's hard to imagine a modern Haskell > without them.
Btw, last year I computed a frequency-list of used extensions over Hackage packages[1]. I'm planning to recompute such a list over all of Hackage as well as over a Stackage subset. That would give us empirical popularity data besides the subjective data provided by the recent reddit discussion. > For example, MultiParamTypeClasses, OverloadedStrings, GADTs, > TypeFamilies, etc. > > How much "work" is typically involved in promoting a feature to be in the > Report, and how do we determine when it's a bad idea? As a concrete example of the problems formalising an extension, I'd like to point to the example of 'BangPatterns' which may appear to be also such a candidate and were considered for Haskell2014 already. Back then, Ian hit some roadblocks: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2013-February/003782.html Of course, I'm sure it would have been possible to resolve the open issues with a bit more persistence. :-) [1]: https://gist.github.com/hvr/fd4fa2f10d4a10c7ebcc -- hvr _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime