On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Stephen H. Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Why has ``Haskell 1.5'' disappeared form the discussion?
In view of the Haskell 2 discussion this would make it clear
that Haskell 1.5 is the current end of one development path,
and would also leave room for small improvements to 1.6
long after Haskell 2.1, 2.2, ..., X.Y have been released.
If the Haskell versions are numbered anyway, as so far in 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2,
so why should the ``stable version'' have a name that leaves one without
any orientation with respect to all the other versions?
Wolfram
