Re: GHC 9.0?

I think we can skip straight to 100 for DependentHaskell. On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:52 AM Moritz Angermann wrote:

Can’t dependent haskell be 10?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 1:09 AM, Alan & Kim Zimmerman wrote:

...

I have to admit this thought had crossed my mind too.

Alan

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:11, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

That's likely to be a fairly long wait, as i understand it.

...

I always thought that we were waiting for -XDependentHaskell before we went to 9. That's just been my impression though; no one has has ever said

On 7/17/20, chessai wrote: that,

...

AFAIK. Perhaps it is wrong.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 9:04 AM Krzysztof Gogolewski wrote:

...

Hi,

There is an exceptional number of changes stated for the next release.

* Better pattern matching coverage detection * New windows IO manager * Linear types * Large-scale typechecker changes - Taming the Kind Inference Monster, simplified subsumption * Better register allocation, improving runtime by 0.8% according to release notes * ghc-bignum * Explicit specificity and eager instantiation * Qualified do * Lexical negation * Perhaps Quick Look will manage to land

Should we call it GHC 9.0? I think the name would be deserved. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

-- brandon s allbery kf8nh allbery.b@gmail.com _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs