No language can serve all of the people all of the time, but I think
we should just do our best with a single standard. I think that the
complexity of multiple languages / layers / standards would not be
worth the payoff.
My original understanding of the Haskell' effort was that it was *not*
intended as going for "Haskell 2", but rather as an update of Haskell 98.
In other words, the target is Haskell 2005:
- anything that was tried and tested by the end of 2005 is a potential
candidate for inclusion in Haskell 2005. nothing else is.
this would necessarily exclude much of the discussion here, for which
I'd see only three ways out:
- make an exception to rule one (bad, but occasionally needed)
- ignore and leave for Haskell 2, whenever that might be (impractical)
- standardise as an optional addendum to Haskell 2005, to lay the
groundwork for Haskell 2010, and to narrow down on the more
successful experiments (good, avoid adhoc Haskell 2 in favour
of incremental approximations)
and the third way seems the most likely to succeed. There'll always
be Haskell xx+extensions (unless people stop experimenting) and some
extensions are good enough to be standardised (perhaps with options),
even if not yet good enough to be part of the current standard. Has
the target changed, or was I misled to think of it this way?-)
btw, I'd find it hard to track discussion on a wiki/ticket system alone.
Could a member of the committee arrange for a Haskell'-weekly
message, please (similar to Haskell weekly, but collecting news headers
and links from haskell', wiki, track, and internal committee discussions)?
cheers,
claus
ps. will haskell 98 support continue when the new standard comes
out, or will there always be 2 languages (standard and standard+)?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
