> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:00:43 +0100 (BST)
> From: "Stephen H. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> >
> > * Incidentally, I'm leaning towards 'Haskell 98' as the name.
> >
> A couple of minor points:
> a) Haskell 1998 would be more appropriate in the light of Year 2000
> problems.
> b) Dating product names like this tends to give the impression that this
> is a snapshot of a continually developing environment, such as Office,
> which gains bells and whistles every year.
> However, Standard Haskell is to be a solid specification, which will
> be largely unchanging. Couldn't this just be named 'Haskell' with no
> numbering, or maybe 'Haskell!' to emphasize the solidness of the
> specification.
> Perhaps 'Just Haskell' is a neat little pun if a more elaborate naming
> scheme is required.
>
> Ste.
If Standard Haskell is meant to be a stable target for texts and the like,
why not Haskell-Ed (for Education), perhaps with a version indication like
Haskell-Ed-98.
While we're at it why not give the stream under continuing development
a distinguishing name like Haskell-Pro (Professional, for Projects,
Production...).
Cheers,
Rock.
--
Andrew Rock -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~arock/
School of Computing and Information Technology
Griffith University -- Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia
