GHC proposal process is active at same time.
To avoid confusion about starting process, it's good that pre-starting
process is written somewhere.
What about directly writing at README.rst as following?
(It's simpler than PR.)
[README.rst]
While the process is open for everyone to participate, c
in
> proposals would not be a good state of affairs, and that likewise members
> of can hold each other accountable.
>
> Anyways: what do you have in mind? :)
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Takenobu Tani
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Iavor,
>>
>> Members of non pr
Dear Iavor,
Members of non prime-commitiee could send pull-request?
README.rst [1] is written as follows:
> While the process is open for everyone to participate, contributing
entirely new issues is currently limited to the members of the Core
Language Committee.
[1]: https://github.com/haske
Hi Carter,
You are right. I had mixed case.
In single thread case, I implicitly assumed IO context rather than pure
parallel context.
Thank you for explanation.
Regards,
Takenobu
2016-04-30 23:20 GMT+09:00 Carter Schonwald :
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 AM Takenobu Tani
16-04-30 16:11 GMT+09:00 Takenobu Tani :
> Hi Jose and Cale,
>
> Thank you for clear and detailed explanation.
>
> short summary:
>
> * `seq` used to eliminate/manage space leaks
> * `pseq` used to specify order of evaluation
>
> * `seq` is a bad name, but wel
ode where order of evaluation matters, it's
>> probably better to reach for a different tool (IMO). However, if
>> parallelism is introduced then I'd fight for `pseq` to be part of that
>> (as you suggest).
>>
>> I hope that sheds some light on the issue.
>
Dear Community,
Apologies if I'm missing context.
Does Haskell 2020 specify evaluation order control by `pseq`?
We use `pseq` to guarantee the evaluation order between two expressions.
But Haskell 2010 did not specify how to control the evaluation order
between two expressions.
(only specified `
