Re: Status of Haskell'?
* Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com [2012-11-27 11:44:51-0500] On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Nate Soares n...@so8r.es wrote: I second this question. At what point do we cut Haskell' with what we have, release it, and push the big undecideds back to Haskell? Maybe the question is whether we have anything. We already skipped 2011 because there wasn't anything worth the effort of a new standard. How about MultiParamTypeClasses, RankNTypes, ExistentialQuantification, GADTs? They've been around for quite some time and turned out very useful in practice. Roman ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Status of Haskell'?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote: Maybe the question is whether we have anything. We already skipped 2011 because there wasn't anything worth the effort of a new standard. How about MultiParamTypeClasses, RankNTypes, ExistentialQuantification, Do we have a definitive go/no-go on the FDs vs. TFs question yet? I thought MPTC was not considered usable without one of those, and neither is yet considered standard (with some good reason in the case of FDs). -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix/linux, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure http://sinenomine.net ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Status of Haskell'?
I think it has proven out pretty well in practice that probably want both in the surface language. I know minimalists on the TF side of the debate have tried to make the case that you don't even need FDs in the surface syntax, but there are lots of places where it having a class with multiple directional constraints makes the code much, much more sane. I would be loathe to sacrifice either of them. -Edward On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.comwrote: uestion yet? I thought MPTC was not considered usable without one of those, and neither is yet considered standard (with some good reason in the case of FDs). ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Status of Haskell'?
* Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com [2012-11-27 12:11:43-0500] On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote: Maybe the question is whether we have anything. We already skipped 2011 because there wasn't anything worth the effort of a new standard. How about MultiParamTypeClasses, RankNTypes, ExistentialQuantification, Do we have a definitive go/no-go on the FDs vs. TFs question yet? I thought MPTC was not considered usable without one of those, and neither is yet considered standard (with some good reason in the case of FDs). I see MPTCs and TFs as independent, in the sense that each one is usable without the other. MPTCs allow the implementation to depend on multiple types, while TFs allow the implementation *and* some other types to depend on one type. Of course, in combination they are even more powerful, allowing to have several basis types and several dependent types. FDs are a bit different because they are not usable without MPTC. Thus, FDs aside, MPTC usefulness should not depend on whether we accept TFs. (FWIW, I agree with Edward that both FDs and TFs are very useful in practice.) Roman ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Status of Haskell'?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: [...] adding DeriveDataTypeable hopefully wouldn't be too controversial [...] This is a little tricky since the Data class itself makes (essential, I think) use of Rank2Types. Typeable ought to be fine, but it might be wise to see what GHC decides to do on that front, first, e.g. whether it's going to autoderive all instances or forbid user instances or anything else similarly bold. ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Status of Haskell'?
it might be wise to see what GHC decides to do on that front, first, I'd argue that it's not. Haskell hasn't had a release in years, and I think it's time to put a little pressure on the community. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.ukwrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: [...] adding DeriveDataTypeable hopefully wouldn't be too controversial [...] This is a little tricky since the Data class itself makes (essential, I think) use of Rank2Types. Typeable ought to be fine, but it might be wise to see what GHC decides to do on that front, first, e.g. whether it's going to autoderive all instances or forbid user instances or anything else similarly bold. ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
