[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>We (the 1.3 designers) are quite aware of the fact that the monadic
>operators (return, >>=, >>, and others) are currently specialized for
>a particular monad, IO. I think we all agree that this is a problem
>but within the current Haskell type system there is no alternative. I
One of the points I remember from the early monad papers was the key issue
that the type system did *not* have to be changed and straight
Hindley/Milner was fine. What has changed to make the Haskell/monad
grouping now see type system change as desirable? (I come from the
existential type grouping so I always thought it was so, I'm interrested in
what changed in the "other" camp. "Other" being a misnomer as the more the
different systems develop the closer they appear to be, and type system
changes would bring them closer still.)
Cheers,
Nigel
--
Dr Nigel Perry Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Computer Science Tel: +64 6 350 4007
Massey University Fax: +64 6 350 5611 Attn. Dr N. Perry
Palmerston North Gopher: smis-asterix.massey.ac.nz
New Zealand (Research Papers & Mac S/W)
What, drive more responsibly!? Give the kids bike helmets!
- The Cycle Helmet Law, New Zealand's Shame.
