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 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 javascript:;> 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 javascript:; http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

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