I personally would welcome a renewed effort to update Standard ML. Successor ML is clearly dead (better than Standard ML, which is ironic given its rather arrogant manifesto), but a small group of well-organised people might be able to put together some modest and well-thought-out revisions to the language. But I don't think that making ad hoc changes to Poly/ML would be a great idea. Larry
On 23 Aug 2012, at 14:34, Ramana Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
