patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add ""Make $ left
associative, like application"
g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org
Wed Jun 4 16:32:53 EDT 2008
Am Montag, 28. April 2008 06:29 schrieben Sie:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch:
> > Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 05:13 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:
> > > […]
> > >
> > > Hence, anything that is *important* to change, we should change now.
> > Although I can follow your arguments, I thought that the large and
> > disruptive changes should be done for Haskell 2.
> Depends what you mean by Haskell 2. If it is an experimental language
> that shares some superficial similarities with Haskell, sure we may
> have Haskell 2. If you mean a serious successor of Haskell with the
> expectation that many/most Haskell users will eventually move to
> Haskell 2, then no. Haskell has been gaining a lot of momentum
> recently. That's good and bad, but surely makes it hard to change the
> trajectory. (This is, of course, just my personal opinion.)
> > If they should really be done now, we should also fix a lot of other
> > things. For example, the Num hierarchy, the Functor/Applicative/Monad
> > hierarchy, the fact that there exist Alternative and MonadPlus although we
> > have Monoid, the fact that we cannot have contexts like (forall a. Monoid
> > (m a)) which is the source for the last problem, the fact that we don’t
> > have class aliases, ugly names like fmap and mappend, etc.
> As Lennart and Ganesh have argued, the amount of breaking changes that
> we we will be able to fit in without causing serious problems is
Hello again (after a long time),
the things I proposed above are mostly library changes which could mostly be
made non-disruptive if we had class aliases. Would this make them acceptable
More information about the Haskell-prime