I believe Successor ML (http://successor-ml.org) is a reasonable route for proposing and discusing language extensions. As far as agreement and standardisation goes, it's usually better if the language features are implemented and tested and used and appreciated before they are codified into (normative) standards. Thus it would make sense for compiler implementors to support extensions to the current standard as long as they are hidden behind compiler flags or pragmas or something. This doesn't mean such extensions shouldn't start life as descriptive standards/specifications, which many compiler writers may or may not choose to implement experimentally.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Lawrence Paulson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd prefer to see no language extensions at all, except by agreement among > the sml community as a whole. > > --lcp > > On 23 Aug 2012, at 13:02, David Matthews <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Over the years I've taken quite a strong line against extensions. The > > intention is that Poly/ML follows the Definition of Standard ML > > (Revised) i.e. ML97. That isn't to say that I couldn't be persuaded > > otherwise but I think it would require more than this. > _______________________________________________ > polyml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml >
_______________________________________________ polyml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
