Re: Cognitive dissonance in the Haskell Report

Sadly, that means someone reading through the whole Report and fixing a lot
of things. I mean, it still doesn't even say how typeclasses work, it just
says "the obvious extension to H-M" or something like that.

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 5:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

> > And since taking the report over-literally will lead you quickly to a
> syntax error, I think GHC doesn't need engage a lawyer.
>
> I believe that sarcasm is misplaced here, for two reasons:
>
> 1) It's unfriendly.
> 2) It's shooting down an argument without offering counter-arguments.
>
> I don't mean to imply that this was an intentional attack or anything,
> but I believe it should be acknowledged as a mistake.
>
> Back to lurking and kind regards,
> Jo
>
> P.S.:
> I do believe he does have a valid point here. Even if the Report is
> "eventually precise enough", ambiguities like this take time and mental
> effort to sort out that would be better spend on learning or tool
> implementing or whatever the person is trying to achieve by reading the
> Report.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list -- [email protected]
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>


-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list -- [email protected]
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.