On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:30:57AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > So I believe the issue is mainly one of perspective. Until I wrote this > email I hadn't thought of (4) and my preference was for (2), but now I > quite like the idea of (4). We would include concurrency in Haskell', > but provide a separate addendum that specifies how imlementations that > don't provide concurrency should behave. One advantage of (4) over (3) > is that we can unambiguously claim that Haskell' has concurrencey.
And we can unambiguously state that there is only one Haskell' implementation (though a second is on the way). Sure, concurrency is essential to many applications, and should be precisely specified. But it is also irrelevant to a lot of uses of Haskell (except for ensuring that one's libraries are also usable on concurrent implementations, as JohnM said). A specification of the language without concurrency would be at least as valuable (having more implementations). Perspective, as you say -- most people agree we need both -- but I think you're a bit too negative about the smaller variant. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
