| > Names including a date, like Haskell 98, ... could mislead.
| How would this be misleading?
There is a popular myth that newer is better. Dating a language almost
guarantees that before long it is seen as ... well ... dated!
Haskell 2 (or Haskell 2005) might come along and be a big improvement;
but then again it might not. This too can be seen in the history of
other programming languages!
Anyway, I agree with Jeff that one can get too hung up about the name.
Haskell 98 would be wonderful compared with `Well, there's Haskell 1.4
at the moment, but actually there's another revision exercise in
progress and ...'.
| > Would it be too much/little to require all declaration groups in an
| > exporting module to be unrestricted -- a straightforward syntactic
| > condition?
| Personally, I'd like to junk the MR, but I don't follow your suggestion?
It is nothing new. I'm just asking whether the sufficient condition for MR
noted in Rule 2 of 4.5.5 (p51 in 1.4 report) could sensibly be made a
requirement for groups including the declaration of an exported variable.
Although this would be even more restrictive, it would at least be simpler
to check -- and to express/understand in error messages. Straw Man to
provoke more thought about MR.
----------------
PS I still think I would miss multidashes as comments!
----
