5 ms·
Again, those are _GHC_ extensions, not "standard" Haskell. At this point it's not Haskell, it's Glasgow Haskell. And those features are not a library that you
by rootnod3 4mo ago
Again, those are _GHC_ extensions, not "standard" Haskell. At this point it's not Haskell, it's Glasgow Haskell.
And those features are not a library that you just throw in, they are compiler specific.
- openuntil3am 4mo agoWhich compiler would you like to use?
- rootnod3 4mo agoPreferably there would be more implementation. But if they only implement the "standard" language, it will be missing a lot of things. That is the point! It's not Haskell anymore. It's Glasgow Haskell. It's its own language at this point.
- whateveracct 4mo agowho cares the only other haskell compiler is MicroHs. and it has no pragmas. it just enables the whole thing. this is not a real problem in practice. even without the GHC20XX stuff (which is nice). it feels like a problem a novice would point at (and be totally wrong) sorry your favorite language doesn't let you import language features according to your needs. half of them have trade-offs! like -XOverloadedLists. Useful, but hurts inference. Maybe you don't want it globally. But maybe in a few modules, it's perfect. {-# LANGUAGE OverloadedLists -#} is the answer that no other mainstream lang has. -XPolyKinds is another great example of that sort of extension.