John Smith <volderm...@hotmail.com> asked:
> What is the best way out of this deadlock? My suggestions: * If possible, make the change optional. As an example, create a second (third, etc.) Prelude with the new features without abandoning the current Prelude. Let the user choose the Prelude he/she wants via a pragma or compiler option. Then developers can vote with their feet (fingers?). If the new Prelude is buggy, it will be easy to try something else. You might call this "intellectual free enterprise." * Do everything possible to create adapters to make upgrading existing code to the new Prelude. Thus, if a new Prelude is adopted widely, existing code will be easy to incorporate with minimal source changes. * Avoid disruptive changes by letting the user decide. Once there is a clear consensus based on significant usage, then the new Prelude can be blessed by some committee (if desired). However, don't abandon the previous Prelude as an option, ever. Textbooks might teach only the newer Prelude, but old code would still work. * Recognize that the Haskell user base at this time shouldn't be constrained by mandated changes, but should be encouraged to experiment and evolve the libraries. Cheers, Howard _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
