
Just a quick thought: The term "built-in" seems a bit myopic IMO since all
these extensions are in a sense built-in, and especially if any of them
make it into Haskell 2020. I wonder if "standard" would be better or
something similar.
On Jul 17, 2016 08:57, "Ryan Scott"
Ben,
I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try. If not, then no worries; we can continue here.
I hadn't thought of using ghc-proposals for this, and since it's still in a nascent state, I'll opt to continue using the GHC devs mailing list for this dicussion.
Alexey,
I can't see how this doesn't require changes to Template Haskell.
You are correct, I got my wires crossed when trying to recall the details. I think what I (sloppily) remembered was that in an earlier revision of https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2280, I had implemented a pragma-based approach that didn't require a language extension. But I now consider that a mistake, so I've introduced the -XDerivingStrategies extension, which should be required regardless of what syntax we decide to adopt.
Ryan S.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Ben Gamari
wrote: Oleg Grenrus
writes: Should we test drive https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals on this proposal?
I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try. If not, then no worries; we can continue here.
Cheers,
- Ben
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs