Somehow every time I see messages from this list I'm again tempted to suggest that it would all be so much easier if the goal were to document the language as it exists in a fixed, already-released version of GHC. But I'm not a member either. If I were, I'd pick a version and veto anything which wasn't in that GHC. You could even pick a really old version of GHC for this purpose and come out with a document that's far more relevant to Haskell users of today than the Haskell 2010 Report. Just getting the Report up to the point where it actually describes most of the stuff in GHC 6 would be fantastic progress, tbh.

Also I'd strongly consider just dropping the specification of the Prelude altogether. I'm not sure it's even all that helpful to include it at this point, given that whatever version someone is using is always going to have Haddock documentation. It's both a point of contention, and of limited usefulness to document. 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 12:02 Bardur Arantsson, <spam@scientician.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2019 21.00, Mario Blažević wrote:
>
> In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
> combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it.

Did anything come of this?

Regards,

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