Class System current status
wnoise at ofb.net
Sun May 14 16:27:43 EDT 2006
On 2006-05-13, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Stephanie Weirich:
>> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> > My suggestion is this:
>> > * Specify MPTCs in the main language
>> > * Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
>> > interpretation of FDs).
>> > * A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and
>> > programmers can write programs against it. But
>> > we are advertising specifically that we aren't sure, one way
>> > or the other, whether FDs will stay in the language for ever
>> Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that
>> says "we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in the
>> language for ever." Why do we need this extra structure?
> IMHO the right thing is to decouple finalising an FD/AT appendix from
> finalising the main body of Haskell'. This is clearly more easily
> realised when the delayed material is out-of-line.
Meh. I'd really like a revised numeric prelude to be able to use MPTCs
More information about the Haskell-prime