What could be considered "standard Haskell" these days?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What could be considered "standard Haskell" these days?

Maurí­cio
Hi,

I would like to take some time to study Haskell properly, so
that I could help others and pay my debt for the many times
I had to bother with my syntax questions. And, of course,
make better use of the language.

My first attempt was to read the syntax description in
Haskell 98 report, and that helped a lot. But I've realized
that it's far from the language as used today. But just
adding all available extensions would not be good, as some
are very experimental e others are obsolete.

I saw Haskell-prime page and a few features are marked
as accepted. That mean I can trust them to be part of the
next Haskell standard?

So: if someone wants to learn the details of the language,
what could be the subset of extensions one should learn
and make regular use, and also include in code supposed
to be used by others in the long term?

Thanks,
Maurício

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What could be considered "standard Haskell" these days?

Bulat Ziganshin-2
Hello Mauricio,

Friday, January 16, 2009, 5:00:58 PM, you wrote:

> So: if someone wants to learn the details of the language,
> what could be the subset of extensions one should learn
> and make regular use, and also include in code supposed
> to be used by others in the long term?

probably Haskell-prime is the best guiding line now

historically, this "pretty standard Haskell" is a common subset of
hugs and ghc extensions. but even this subset is a bit too large,
containing some temporary and not much beloved extensions (parallel
comprehensions, fundeps...)


--
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What could be considered "standard Haskell" these days?

Don Stewart-2
In reply to this post by Maurí­cio
briqueabraque:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to take some time to study Haskell properly, so
> that I could help others and pay my debt for the many times
> I had to bother with my syntax questions. And, of course,
> make better use of the language.
>
> My first attempt was to read the syntax description in
> Haskell 98 report, and that helped a lot. But I've realized
> that it's far from the language as used today. But just
> adding all available extensions would not be good, as some
> are very experimental e others are obsolete.
>
> I saw Haskell-prime page and a few features are marked
> as accepted. That mean I can trust them to be part of the
> next Haskell standard?
>
> So: if someone wants to learn the details of the language,
> what could be the subset of extensions one should learn
> and make regular use, and also include in code supposed
> to be used by others in the long term?

Have a look at the accepted extensions for Haskell Prime.

-- Don
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe