"John A. De Goes" <j...@n-brain.net> writes: > That's absurd. You have no way to access private source > code, so any decision on what features to exclude from > future versions of Haskell must necessarily look at > publicly accessible source code.
This is all entirely beside the point. The question is not whether n+k patterns should be in the language, it's whether an implementation of Haskell 98 should include them. > The only alternative is to continuously add, and never > remove, features from Haskell, even if no one (that we > know) uses them. But we can remove them in future language versions. The point I was trying to make at the beginning of this subthread was that implementations should follow the definition, because having a core language (Haskell 98) that can be relied on is simpler and wastes less time than the alternative. -- Jón Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2009-01-31) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
