RE: [Haskell-cafe] Interest in helping w/ Haskell standard
On 12 October 2005 23:50, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
(I'm specifically interested in seeing SPJ's records proposal included, and a new module system).
Highly unlikely, IMHO. A new revision of the Haskell standard is not the place for testing new research, rather it's a clear specification of existing well-understood language features. If you want a new record system, or a new module system, now is the time to start designing and implementing them ready for the next standardisation process. Cheers, Simon
On 10/13/05, Simon Marlow <simonmar@microsoft.com> wrote:
On 12 October 2005 23:50, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
(I'm specifically interested in seeing SPJ's records proposal included, and a new module system).
Highly unlikely, IMHO. A new revision of the Haskell standard is not the place for testing new research, rather it's a clear specification of existing well-understood language features.
I can certainly understand this point of view. I am (as primarily a user and not a language designer) perhaps too eager to get my hands on cool new stuff :-)
If you want a new record system, or a new module system, now is the time to start designing and implementing them ready for the next standardisation process.
Okay then. Consider this my contribution to the discussion. First of all I would like to urge the people who do end up working on this to seriously consider replacing H98's records system. I may be wrong but the impression I get is that enough people dislike the current system enough to warrant a replacement. And to me it seems to be a pretty much "slam-dunk" case that the proposal is *a lot* better than what we current have. On the module system. You may consider this a proposal. There have been discussions on this mailing lists about it but let me recap the main gist of it. Conservatively extend the current ghc hierarchical module system by allowing you to re-export modules "qualified". So you could write module GTK (..., qualified module GTK.Button as Button, ...) where Then the user could just import GTK and get all of the contents of GTK.Button imported qualifed as Button automatically. This allow libraries written using the current hierarchcical system to work without any changes, while new libraries can use the new feature (I'm guessing GTK2HS would benefit a lot from this, getting rid of all the ugly "buttonNew"-style functions). /S -- Sebastian Sylvan +46(0)736-818655 UIN: 44640862
Hello Sebastian, Thursday, October 13, 2005, 4:09:55 PM, you wrote:
(I'm specifically interested in seeing SPJ's records proposal included, and a new module system).
SS> First of all I would like to urge the people who do end up working on SS> this to seriously consider replacing H98's records system. I may be yes, it is a common viewpoint, afaik. the only problem is what this new record system was never really implemented, partially because it is not backward-compatible with H98, partially because Simons are not very like such syntax sugar extensions, they prefer "real semantic beasts" :) so, this proposal is a bit out of luck :))) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 12 October 2005 23:50, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
(I'm specifically interested in seeing SPJ's records proposal included, and a new module system).
Highly unlikely, IMHO. A new revision of the Haskell standard is not the place for testing new research, rather it's a clear specification of existing well-understood language features.
In that context, how well-understood is the combination of impredicative types via boxy types and a proper existential quantifier at the moment? It's certainly something that has many uses in an industrial context. -- flippa@flippac.org Society does not owe people jobs. Society owes it to itself to find people jobs.
participants (4)
-
Bulat Ziganshin -
Philippa Cowderoy -
Sebastian Sylvan -
Simon Marlow