I suggest using the existing SML evolution mailing list ( https://mailman.cs.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/sml-evolution), which is currently very low traffic, for the small group of people to discuss the modest revision. That way, the discussion is public and anyone interested in SML is free to join in. (Various people, especially implementers, ought to be invited, of course, too.)
Crary and Harper's Mechanized Definition of SML may be a good starting point for making a revised definition. The list of "immediate" changes on the successor ML wiki page ( http://successor-ml.org/index.php?title=Main_Page#Immediate) would make a respectable final goal for this project. I suggest that someone going to the ML workshop next month (which is unfortunately not me) take the lead, and see who is interested there. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Lawrence Paulson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
