> >That said, the more I think about it, I don't really believe that
> >"Standard Haskell" will accomplish much. The fact is that everyone
> >wants many of the features in Haskell 2, and so even today would prefer
> >using an implementation that is probably not fully compliant with
> >anything that is "official" at all.
>
> I feel that way, but I think that Richard Bird and other people using
> Haskell in teaching may disagree. (Come to think of it, wouldn't that
> category include you too?)
It's not only people who use Haskell for teaching that want stability.
If you've used Haskell for some real project where the current Haskell
is adequate (which, IMHO, is quite a few) you may not want to rewrite
gazillion lines of code. I was one of the proponents of Standard Haskell
partly because I have such programs. I'm sure there are others who
don't care about the latest features, but just want to keep their programs
running. I think Standard Haskell is a good thing since it opens up
the possibility of making non-compatible changes in Haskell 2.
-- Lennart
