These lineages are more or less right, except that there is a bit of incest: LML is certainly one of the progenitors of Haskell. (more semantically than syntactically, though)
Cheers, --Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > G'day all. > > Quoting Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Actually, one of the main reasons that we chose (:) is that that's what >> Miranda used. So, at the time at least, it was not entirely clear what >> the "de facto universal inter-language standard" was. > > Exactly. One point that's often not appreciated is that Haskell is not > a descendent of ML. The ML lineage is, roughly: > > Lisp -> ISWIM -> ML -> SML, LML, O'Caml etc > > And the Haskell lineage is: > > Lisp -> ISWIM -> SASL -> KRC -> Miranda -> Haskell > > ML is much more like an older cousin than an ancestor. > > This point is important because Turner languages already had a list > syntax at the time that they adopted an ML-like type system. > > Cheers, > Andrew Bromage > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > Joseph H. Fasel, Ph.D. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stockpile-Complex Modeling and Analysis phone: +1 505 667 7158 University of California fax: +1 505 667 2960 Los Alamos National Laboratory post: D-2 MS F609; Los Alamos, NM 87545 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
