On Tuesday 29 July 2003 04:10, Andrew J Bromage wrote: > There is no ISO standard Haskell. There is Haskell 98, but that was > deliberately designed to be a simpler language than what came before > it, with no experimental features, partly to make teaching the language > easier. (You can't write a textbook for a moving target.)
True. However, for those who, like me, haven't yet seen much beyond textbooks, the textbook standard is the reference. It is not so easy to figure out which extensions are experimental or satisfy a few persons' taste and which are likely to stay. > The situation with Haskell today is somewhat analogous to C++ _during_ > its standardisation process, when people were proposing all kinds of I think that C++ was a lot worse, even the accepted features (e.g. templates) didn't work the same with all compilers. All non-trivial code came with a list of supported compilers. Konrad. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.56.24 Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17 45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/ France | Nederlands/Francais ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
