>>>>> Gershom B <gersh...@gmail.com> writes: > While such changes should definitely be in scope, I do think that the proper > mechanism would be to garner enough interest to get a patch into GHC > (whether through discussion on the -prime list or elsewhere) and have an > experimental implementation, even for syntax changes, before such proposals > are considered ready for acceptance into a standard as such.
Just a side note: This is often how the C++ committee proceeds as well: a language proposal with an experimental implementation is given much higher credence than paperware. However, they don't exclude paperware either. So I don't think we need to rely on implementation before considering a feature we all want, but I do agree that seeing a patch in GHC first allows for much testing and experimentation. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
