writing / status teams - call for volunteers

Greetings, There are just a few days to go before the Haskell Workshop, and I'd like to be able to present the community with a report on our progress. With that in mind, I'm looking for some help during this busy time of year. The Haskell' committee has been voting on the wiki about the relative strength of various proposals. We're trying to find a group of proposals that is "definitely in" so that we can start the hard work of writing the report. Here's the survey: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StrawPoll-2 The idea is that we want to make some tangible progress on actually writing the report, so we have selected some pretty non-controversial proposals. This is also to get a better idea of where there is and is not consensus. Below is the list of so-called "definitely-in" proposals, which is probably not quite correct. For instance, I don't think it's clear that MPTCs are definitely in, but the others look pretty good. Beside the proposal name is the group of committee members who have volunteered to write sections for so-called "definitely in" features. I have several requests for volunteers, which can be within or not within the committee: Would anyone else like to volunteer to write a section of the report for specific proposals below? Can anyone volunteer to do a survey of the current status of each of these proposals? We should try to figure out how far from done we are on all of them. I imagine that some things like concurrency are far from done, while other things like hierarchical modules and empty data declarations are pretty much done. Will anyone volunteer to write a status report for the community, with the goal of finishing the status report by the time of Haskell Workshop. This obviously isn't something fancy, just a summary of the items discussed, the current status on them, etc. This should all be on the list archives and on the wiki. A committee member is probably best suited for this, but anyone following the process closely should be able to do it :) Also, everyone should please think about this list as a whole; apply your right brain to consider whether it's a coherent and elegant set of proposals.
In ==
#74: add some kind of concurrency: SM, HN, IJ #35: add ForeignFunctionInterface: MC, SM #49: add multi parameter type classes: MS #60: add RankNTypes or Rank2Types: AL #57: add polymorphic components: AL #26: add ExistentialQuantification (existential components): AL, MS, SJT #24: add HierarchicalModules: BH, IJ #25: add EmptyDataDeclarations: BH, HN #23: fix common pitfall with the do-notation and if-then-else: SM, HN, #42: fix comment syntax grammar: SM #56: add Pattern Guards: :( #78: Add infix type constructors: BH, AL Help w/ libraries (yay!): IJ, BH, SM, RP, DS
peace, isaac

Would anyone else like to volunteer to write a section of the report for specific proposals below?
In ==
#74: add some kind of concurrency: SM, HN, IJ #35: add ForeignFunctionInterface: MC, SM #49: add multi parameter type classes: MS #60: add RankNTypes or Rank2Types: AL #57: add polymorphic components: AL #26: add ExistentialQuantification (existential components): AL, MS, SJT #24: add HierarchicalModules: BH, IJ #25: add EmptyDataDeclarations: BH, HN #23: fix common pitfall with the do-notation and if-then-else: SM, HN, #42: fix comment syntax grammar: SM #56: add Pattern Guards: :( #78: Add infix type constructors: BH, AL Help w/ libraries (yay!): IJ, BH, SM, RP, DS
I would like to start writing a new section on the syntax of data type declarations. All the proposals I've put my name on are somewhat related to this area, most of all "existential quantification" and "infix type constructors". Have we already discussed how we produce new text for the report? Is this supposed to be all on the Wiki, or are we going to modify the TeX sources of the Haskell-98 report? Is the plan to keep the general style and structure of the Haskell-98 report, or are we going to rewrite and restructure the whole report? Cheers, Andres

Andres Loeh:
Have we already discussed how we produce new text for the report? Is this supposed to be all on the Wiki, or are we going to modify the TeX sources of the Haskell-98 report? Is the plan to keep the general style and structure of the Haskell-98 report, or are we going to rewrite and restructure the whole report?
I think for the time being, we should work on the wiki. The actual report will have to be written by two or three editors (doing a lot of cut'n'paste from the wiki). Otherwise, I doubt we'll get anything coherent. Manuel
participants (3)
-
Andres Loeh
-
isaac jones
-
Manuel M T Chakravarty