ghc VS ghc-proposals

of course it does! what else would you call something like chicken scheme [https://call-cc.org/], ats [https://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/], or ghc [https://www.haskell.org/ghc/]? they are not "scripts", they are full-blown compilers that happen to use C as their compilation target, and then leverage C compilers to generate code for a variety of architecures. it's a very sensible way to do things.

Agree about Haskell... as far as I'm aware there is actually no declarative/easily-readable definition of the Haskell syntax that is also complete, especially when it comes to the indentation rules, and the syntax is basically defined by the very (ironically) imperatively-defined GHC parser[0].

I prefer a syntax like in Pure[1], where the ambiguous, hard to parse indentation-based syntax is replaced by explicit semicolons (Yeah, you can use braces/semicolons in Haskell as well, but most code doesn't).

[0] https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/GHC/Parser/L...

[1] https://agraef.github.io/pure-lang/

GHC, the main Haskell compiler

GHCi, version 9.6.3: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Loaded GHCi configuration from /Users/daniel/.ghci ghci> :{ | split :: Float -> [Int] | split value = map(read . (:[])) . show | :} :3:15: error: [GHC-83865] • Couldn't match expected type: [Int] with actual type: a0 -> [b0] • Probable cause: ‘(.)’ is applied to too few arguments In the expression: map (read . (: [])) . show In an equation for ‘split’: split value = map (read . (: [])) . show

GHC is hosted on Gitlab, the Github repo is just a mirror. So money.

https://github.com/ghc/ghc

☁ ~ ghci GHCi, version 9.4.7: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help ghci> 6 + 3^2 * 4 42

Depending on who you ask, a programming language can be different things. If you ask the Haskell community, many will tell you that the language is the Haskell specification, and that what currently is being used is not Haskell itself, but an extension of Haskell that is supported by the GHC compiler. Similar to the C language, a programming language would be a specification.

GHCi, version 9.4.2: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Loaded GHCi configuration from ~/.dotfiles/ghc/.ghc/ghci.conf

> I think Haskell needs a way to graduate (or retire) language extensions

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601

Additionally, while this proposal is focused on the simple implementation and so in the current proposal or patterns do not bind any variables as per #522, if we do get settled on syntax and then later wish to expand to allow binding variables as in #43, then the syntax is again clean and discoverable.

Yeah, a relatively natural thing would be to be able to opt-in to having the HasField instances be available in all contexts. The (not yet implemented, but accepted) "Modifiers" GHC proposal might be nice for that.

The local modules proposal imo is excellent as-is.

Why would you drop TypeFamilies? It seems fairly popular, given that it was just one vote short of getting added to GHC2021. Do you consider it a less-ideal compromise, that is subsumed by your second proposal (Core with GRTT)?

as syntax is contentious a topic as ever, David (the main proposal author) and I would like to invite you to give your input on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/585, where we propose to change the syntax of the accepted proposal #522 introducing Or patterns. In particular, we'd like to know

This looks great, congratulations on completing it! I assume you didn’t get an opportunity to evaluate the delimited continuations based eff library? It would’ve been nice to see Cont included as one of the effects covered, though perhaps not available in all the systems you looked at? Maybe some future work.

I do hope qualified exports are available someday: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283

Right. Being able to disable "custom type warnings" at use sites was part of an earlier proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/454) but it ended up being shelved.