On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovichy@gmail.com) wrote:
I think it is what the process should change. It makes sense to have two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, but it is not the case. Prime committee may accept or reject e.g. GADTs, but it will change nothing because people will continue using GADTs regardless, and any feature accepted by the Prime committee will necessary be compatible with GADTs extension.
I disagree. By the stated goals of the H2020 Committee, if it is successful, then by 2020 it will still for the most part have only standardized ony a _portion_ of the extentions that now exist today. There’s always been a barrier between implementation and standard in the Haskell language, that’s precisely one of the things that _keeps_ it from having become entirely implementation-defined despite the prevelance of extensions. Having two entirely different processes here (though obviously not without communication between the individuals involved) helps maintain that. —Gershom