. 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
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 shadows?
Generally speaking,
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
>> OutsideIn, and which is strictly less
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 wrote:
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 implement than
> OutsideIn, and which is strictly less powe
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
> specification can be given in a
ebate,
> > just yet. (Which I intended but failed to get across in the email
> > which unintentionally started this all off.) I think we have many much
> > lower-hanging fruit and it'd be a better use of our time to try and
> > get those squared away first. Doing so wi
ntionally started this all off.) I think we have many much
> lower-hanging fruit and it'd be a better use of our time to try and
> get those squared away first. Doing so will help us figure out and
> debug the process for having such debates, which should help the GADT
> debate itself
se squared away first. Doing so will help us figure out and
debug the process for having such debates, which should help the GADT
debate itself actually be fruitful. As well as making progress on
other fronts, so we don't get mired down first thing.
Whenever the debate occurs, here's
