Re: Scope of committee (can we do *new* things?)

...

...

...

...

Gershom B writes:

While such changes should definitely be in scope, I do think that the proper mechanism would be to garner enough interest to get a patch into GHC (whether through discussion on the -prime list or elsewhere) and have an experimental implementation, even for syntax changes, before such proposals are considered ready for acceptance into a standard as such.

Just a side note: This is often how the C++ committee proceeds as well: a language proposal with an experimental implementation is given much higher credence than paperware. However, they don't exclude paperware either. So I don't think we need to rely on implementation before considering a feature we all want, but I do agree that seeing a patch in GHC first allows for much testing and experimentation. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2