| > Are these three technical capabilities *all* that we would need?
| > Perhaps
| > we also need a way to tie the current language (-XHaskell98,
| > -XHaskell2010) to a particular implementation of the Prelude.
| >
| >
| > I don't have a concrete plan here. I'm not even sure one ca
On 10/22/2015 02:25 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
> mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>> wrote:
>
> On 10/22/2015 01:29 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
> > mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>
>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Collins
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that if we want to appeal to or cater to working
>>> software engineers, we have to be a lot less cavalier about causing more
>>> work for them, and we need to
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 01:29 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
> > mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am not against changing the Prelude! But it sure would be nice if
> > -XHa
On 10/22/2015 07:41 PM, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 01:29 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
>> mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am not against changing the Prelude! But it sure would be nice if
>> -XHaskell98 gave me
On 10/22/2015 01:29 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
> mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>> wrote:
>
>
> I am not against changing the Prelude! But it sure would be nice if
> -XHaskell98 gave me a Haskell 98 Prelude and -XHaskell2010 gave me a
> H
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
wrote:
>
> > I outlined one possible path to avoid this kind of issue: spend more
> > time thinking about ways to maintain compatibility. We had
> > proposals for
> > doing this with AMP.
> >
> >
> > And on the other hand we also
> I outlined one possible path to avoid this kind of issue: spend more
> time thinking about ways to maintain compatibility. We had
> proposals for
> doing this with AMP.
>
>
> And on the other hand we also had a concrete proposal that didn't
> require language changes that was rid
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Mario Blažević
wrote:
> On 15-10-22 09:29 AM, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> 1) What is the master plan, and where is it documented, even if this
>> document is not up to the standard of a proposal? What is the final
>> target, and when might we expect i
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Mainland
wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Matthias Hörmann wrote:
> > I would say that the need to import Control.Applicative in virtually
> > every module manually
> > definitely caused some pain before AMP.
>
> In this particular case, there is a trade
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Geoffrey Mainland
wrote:
> Thanks to you and Dan [1], I now have a greater understanding and
> appreciation for where the committee has been coming from. My new
> understanding is that the changes that were formalized in AMP, FTP, and
> MRP were the basis for the
On 15-10-22 09:29 AM, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:
...
1) What is the master plan, and where is it documented, even if this
document is not up to the standard of a proposal? What is the final
target, and when might we expect it to be reached? What is in the
pipeline after MRP?
Relatedly, guidance o
On 10/22/2015 11:02 AM, Matthias Hörmann wrote:
> I would say that the need to import Control.Applicative in virtually
> every module manually
> definitely caused some pain before AMP.
In this particular case, there is a trade off between breaking code on
the one hand and having to write some impo
On 10/22/2015 02:40 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Gregory Collins
> mailto:g...@gregorycollins.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Geoffrey Mainland
> mailto:mainl...@apeiron.net>> wrote:
>
> My original email stated my underlying concern
On 22.10 09:04, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Fyi, Alan is currently working on levaraging HaRe[1] in
>
> https://github.com/alanz/Hs2010To201x (the `parsing-only` branch)
>
> and it's already showing great promise. However, tools like this will
> only be able to handle the no-brainer cases, a
On 2015-10-22 at 08:04:10 +0200, Taru Karttunen wrote:
[...]
> B) There is an automated tool that can be used to fix most code
> to compile with new versions of GHC without warnings or CPP.
Fyi, Alan is currently working on levaraging HaRe[1] in
https://github.com/alanz/Hs2010To201x (the `pars
16 matches
Mail list logo