> If the Haskell report doesn't say what the semantics of the
> language are
> (and in this case indeed it doesn't), then that is a bug in
> the Haskell
> report, IMHO. It would be OK for the Haskell report to leave
> the semantics
> unspecified, so long as it explicitly says so, but simply leaving
> things unsaid leads to too much ambiguity.
This is an absolute swamp, and one that I do not propose to enter
for the typo-fixing phase of Haskell 98. (I plan to complete this
during the last week in Jan.) I would be prepared to say that
certain behaviour is explicitly undefined if someone (Fergus?) can
suggest some concrete words to add at a specific place.
(I think you're right that this sort of thing should be specified
properly...; I'm just dealing with the art of the possible here.
What I don't want to do is to try to fix something but end up
making it worse.)
Simon
