That's neat; parser working hard to make the language look simple.
The success sword of GHC is dual edged; it's made Haskell effectively synonymous with "Language accepted by a recent GHC". The upside is an amazing language with great many advanced features. The downside is an enormous language in a monoculture. It's nearly the antithesis of C (small language that grew little and slowly, but for which there are 100s of implementations).
I don't know either, but FWIW, there _are_ many (ok, several) Haskell implementation, but they only implement the language defined in the standard, and nobody has been able or willing to chase all the extensions in GHC.
Does Ruby and MRI have specs detailed enough that you could implement the entired language from just those? Few languages do, but Scheme and Haskell are among them.
The success sword of GHC is dual edged; it's made Haskell effectively synonymous with "Language accepted by a recent GHC". The upside is an amazing language with great many advanced features. The downside is an enormous language in a monoculture. It's nearly the antithesis of C (small language that grew little and slowly, but for which there are 100s of implementations).