RE: The GADT debate

2016-05-09 Thread Augustsson, Lennart
. Maybe something similar is possible here. -Original Message- From: Haskell-prime [mailto:haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg Sent: 08 May 2016 16:25 To: Gershom B Cc: haskell-prime@haskell.org List Subject: Re: The GADT debate On May 7, 2016, at 11

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-08 Thread wren romano
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote: > Peripherally, this also brings up the notion of type equality, and I'm a bit > fuzzy about how big a chasm there is between what that means in Haskell 2010 > vs more bleeding edge styles, or am I pointing at a

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-08 Thread wren romano
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > On May 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Gershom B wrote: >> >> an attempt (orthogonal to the prime committee at first) to specify an >> algorithm for inference that is easier to describe and implement than

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-08 Thread Iavor Diatchki
Hello, what is the state with the semantic specification of GADTs? I am wondering if they fit in the usual CPO-style semantics for Haskell, or do we need some more exotic mathematical structure to give semantics to the language. -Iavor On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carter Schonwald

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-08 Thread Carter Schonwald
On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > On May 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Gershom B > > wrote: > > > > an attempt (orthogonal to the prime committee at first) to specify an > algorithm for inference that is easier to describe and

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-08 Thread Richard Eisenberg
On May 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Gershom B wrote: > > an attempt (orthogonal to the prime committee at first) to specify an > algorithm for inference that is easier to describe and implement than > OutsideIn, and which is strictly less powerful. (And indeed whose >

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-07 Thread Carter Schonwald
On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Gershom B wrote: > On May 7, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM, wren romano (w...@community.haskell.org > ) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There's been some discussion about whether to consider including GADTs > > in the new report, but it's been mixed

Re: The GADT debate

2016-05-07 Thread Gershom B
On May 7, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM, wren romano (w...@community.haskell.org) wrote: > Hi all, > > There's been some discussion about whether to consider including GADTs > in the new report, but it's been mixed up with other stuff in the > thread on incorporating extensions wholesale, which has