27 Feb
2013
27 Feb
'13
12:22 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:54:35PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 25/02/13 18:05, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Personally, I don't think the language report should be specifying the content of libraries at all,
It's not that straightforward, because the language report refers to various library functions, types and classes. For example, integer literals give rise to a constraint on Num, so we have to say what Num is. Guards depend on Bool, the translation of list comprehensions refers to "map", and so on.
It could be whittled down certainly (we actually removed a few libraries in Haskell 2010), but there's still a core that is tied to the language definition.
Yes, OK, my language was a bit strong: s/at all/any more than necessary/ Thanks Ian