On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Nate Soares wrote:
>
>> This standardization process amounts to "endorsement of existing
>> features" which seems like not a bad process at all. It makes
>> the standard descriptive rather than predictive.
>
>
> +1. I agree generally with Gabor's points -- GHC is
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jason Dusek wrote:
> It would be nice for there to be a new standard so that many
> features in GHC -- such as overloaded strings, rank n types,
> MPTCs, &c. -- were enabled by default without any pragmas.
I think this is one of these nice gains for day-to-day Has
> This standardization process amounts to "endorsement of existing
> features" which seems like not a bad process at all. It makes
> the standard descriptive rather than predictive.
>
+1. I agree generally with Gabor's points -- GHC is in the drivers seat.
But at some point we should take a look a
2012/11/30 Gábor Lehel :
> Executive summary: We don't need a new standard right now. If
> people don't think it's worth their while to work on it,
> they're probably right. New, competing implementations might
> be valuable. If we have them, there will be demand for a
> standard, making decisions
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> The question is: who is “the community”?
>
>
>
> It’s fairly clear that the Haskell Prime process
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.
The question is: who is "the community"?
It's fairly clear that the Haskell Prime process itself is languishing. The
last message about the development process that I
