headers
Simon Peyton-Jones | 23 Dec 2011 18:41
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

FW: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral

I'm confused too.  I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk.

S

-----Original Message-----
From: Serge D. Mechveliani [mailto:mechvel@...] 
Sent: 23 December 2011 17:36
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Subject: Re: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 08:14:54PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> |  2011/12/22 Edward Kmett <ekmett@...>:
> |  > The change, however, was a deliberate _break_ with the standard that
> |  > passed through the library review process a few months ago, and is now
> |  > making its way out into the wild.
> |  
> |  Is it reasonable to enquire how many standard-compliant implementations
> |  of Haskell there are?
> 
> Just to be clear, the change IS the standard.  GHC has to change to be compliant. 
> At least that's how I understand it.

I am confused.
I am looking now at the on-line specification of  Haskell-2010, 
6.3 Standard Haskell Classes.
It shows that  Integral  includes  Show:  

                           Eq     Show 
                             \   /
                              Num
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iavor Diatchki | 24 Dec 2011 18:32
Picon
Gravatar

Re: FW: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral

Hello,

The discussion on the libraries list is archived here:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2011-September/016699.html

There hasn't been a corresponding discussion for Haskell Prime so,
technically, GHC deviates from the standard.

-Iavor

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj <at> microsoft.com> wrote:
> I'm confused too.  I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk.
>
> S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Serge D. Mechveliani [mailto:mechvel <at> botik.ru]
> Sent: 23 December 2011 17:36
> To: Simon Peyton-Jones
> Subject: Re: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 08:14:54PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> |  2011/12/22 Edward Kmett <ekmett <at> gmail.com>:
>> |  > The change, however, was a deliberate _break_ with the standard that
>> |  > passed through the library review process a few months ago, and is now
>> |  > making its way out into the wild.
>> |
>> |  Is it reasonable to enquire how many standard-compliant implementations
>> |  of Haskell there are?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ian Lynagh | 24 Dec 2011 21:37
Picon
Gravatar

Re: FW: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 05:41:23PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I'm confused too.  I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk.

We use the library process to agree changes to the libraries, and
Haskell' should then incorporate the changes into the next version of
the standard.

Thanks
Ian
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Meacham | 6 Mar 2012 10:17
Favicon

Re: FW: 7.4.1-pre: Show & Integral

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 05:41:23PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> I'm confused too.  I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk.
>
> We use the library process to agree changes to the libraries, and
> Haskell' should then incorporate the changes into the next version of
> the standard.

FWIW, the library change process is nowhere near rigorous enough to
decide what should go into a language standard. Not that some good
 ideas have not been explored, but before adding them to a language
standard, they would require considerably more discussion.

   John
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane