On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:04:22PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:11:29PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > > 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. > > True. If we had more Haskell implementations, we might be in the > same boat. > > Our situation is much simpler. Code is either written for Haskell 98, > or for "Glasgow extensions".
Almost. There's Haskell 98, H98 plus common extensions (the baseline for the hierarchical libraries), a larger language accepted by both GHC and Hugs, and then there's GHC. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe