Or more strongly : language extensions explicitly articulating which fancy features are enabled in a given module makes code more reason-able! 
And has made evolving code styles much easier to learn 

I still remember when having a toplevel -fglasgow-extensions was a thing, and I personally only started to understand various fancy techniques after the tools / features used In a given module had to be explicitly enumerated. 

 Phrased differently: i agree with Richard 


-Carter 

On Friday, August 19, 2016, Richard Eisenberg <rae@cs.brynmawr.edu> wrote:
I personally think this should be in scope. And indeed the Haskell 2010 Report does codify several extensions in Section 12.3.

Richard

> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:57 PM, M Farkas-Dyck <m.farkasdyck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow
> the extension, but using it remains optional.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

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