That's likely to be a fairly long wait, as i understand it. On 7/17/20, chessai wrote:

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 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

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

There is also major change of the GHC API structure by Sylvain :) Regards, Takenobu On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:01 AM Ben Gamari wrote:

On July 17, 2020 6:51:25 PM EDT, 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

No objection from me. Indeed it has been a while since we had a supermajor bump and linear types is quite a significant feature.

Cheers,

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

Does Quick Look still have chances to make it into the next release? It'd be fascinating if the major version bump got both linear and impredicative types! -- Best, Artem On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 07:04, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

Despite having to withdraw my claim about dependent types in GHC 9.0, now does seem like a good time for the bump, for the reasons articulated in this thread.

Richard

...

On Jul 18, 2020, at 3:55 AM, Takenobu Tani wrote:

There is also major change of the GHC API structure by Sylvain :)

Regards, Takenobu

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:01 AM Ben Gamari wrote:

...

On July 17, 2020 6:51:25 PM EDT, Moritz Angermann <

moritz.angermann@gmail.com> 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.

On 7/17/20, chessai wrote: > 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 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

No objection from me. Indeed it has been a while since we had a supermajor bump and linear types is quite a significant feature.

Cheers,

- Ben _______________________________________________ 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

Which sounds like we have agreed on 9.0? Alan On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, 00:28 Ben Gamari, wrote:

Artem Pelenitsyn writes:

...

Does Quick Look still have chances to make it into the next release? It'd be fascinating if the major version bump got both linear and impredicative types!

I'm afraid not. Quick Look will need to wait for 9.2.

Cheers,

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

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

Am Freitag, den 24.07.2020, 11:37 -0400 schrieb Ben Gamari:

As no one has objected, let's move ahead with this proposal. GHC 8.12.1 shall henceforth be 9.0.1.

Allow me to fix the Subject of this mail thread then ;-) -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/