Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[Tejas]

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 19:22:00 UTC, Don Allen wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 22:45:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You are missing my point. In any language -- C, Haskell, what 
> have you -- some compilers will implement extensions, such as 
> the nested functions in C introduced by gcc. The essential 
> point is that just because some compiler implements an 
> extension, there is no guarantee that extension will make it 
> into the official language definition, therefore you use that 
> extension at the risk of writing non-portable, 
> non-future-proofed code. Haskell is no different in that 
> respect from any other language. That is true can be found in a 
> number of hits you turn up when you search for 'haskell 
> language extensions'.
>
> Whether it is common or not for "Haskell code to rely on *at 
> least some* GHC extensions" is not the issue. The issue is 
> whether those extensions eventually become an official part of 
> the language. Some do, some don't, or some do in revised form.
>
> You can have the last word if you like; I'm done with this 
> thread, which has long since crossed the ad nauseam threshold.

Yeah, I guess an extreme version of this could be saying that 
Haskell has refinement types because Liquid Haskell exists

A lot of C's flaws could be accounted for if we were willing to 
consider GNU C rather than ISO C