On 5/24/07, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
> The other syntaxes proposed don't strike me as sufficiently rigorous.
Me neither. It's always been a great source of puzzlement to me why this
very simple and IMO conservative proposal should be so controversial.
Unless someone can point out some severe semantic difficulty or suggest
something better it seems like a no-brainer to me.
I think it lacks implementation. I don't have time, or I'd look into
hacking this into GHC.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
