Re: GHC 9.0?
"Alan & Kim Zimmerman" writes: > Which sounds like we have agreed on 9.0? > I've not heard any objections so I am happy to push through the change. However, I'm waiting another day before formally announcing. The earlier email was a bit of a slip on my part. If anyone sees a good reason why with the coming release shouldn't be numbered 9.0, speak now or forever hold your speech. Cheers, - Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: GHC 9.0?
Which sounds like we have agreed on 9.0? Alan On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, 00:28 Ben Gamari, wrote: > Artem Pelenitsyn writes: > > > Does Quick Look still have chances to make it into the next release? > > It'd be fascinating if the major version bump got both linear and > > impredicative types! > > > I'm afraid not. Quick Look will need to wait for 9.2. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > ___ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: GHC 9.0?
Artem Pelenitsyn writes: > Does Quick Look still have chances to make it into the next release? > It'd be fascinating if the major version bump got both linear and > impredicative types! > I'm afraid not. Quick Look will need to wait for 9.2. Cheers, - Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
