The future of Dependent Haskell

[atravers]

@Ambrose

If you have concrete issues with the current changes or planned next steps as they relate to Haskell overall, sure - bring them up.

This gets back to the post which (helped to) start all of this:

Serokell’s Work on GHC: Dependent Types, Part 4

Every time I see a post like this I get really excited, wonder how far along we are, realize I still don’t understand the roadmap to DT, try to read a paper about it (usually Eisenberg’s roadmap) and give up. But I like reading the reactions of people who get it.

So where exactly is the “grand plan” for a “Dependent Haskell” ?