Re: Gif writer module

1998-09-09 Thread Walter Ariel Risi
At 16:21 18/09/98 +0100, Keith S. Wansbrough wrote: >> > Without any intention of denigrating excellent work in Haskell, is >> > there any reason to prefer this over gnuplot? What is it? >> >> What can I answer here on "what is it?"? See for yourself >> on my html page - I am not hidin

Haskell 2000

1998-09-09 Thread Frank Christoph
I really don't care what you call it, but please don't call it Haskell 2000 unless you want it to be remembered as just another one of the countless products and projects that decided to capitalize on the turning of the millenium under the pretense of commemorating it. -- Frank Christoph

Re: Int vs Integer

1998-09-09 Thread John Launchbury
> > In the Libraries: state of play document, the sixth point is > > about Int: > > 1. There are other library functions in a similar vein to > > take and drop, such as splitAt, !!, elemIndex, findIndex; > > I take it that these are also covered. > > I hope so When we discussed this before I app

Re: Standard Haskell

1998-09-09 Thread Rob Ballantyne
John Launchbury wrote: > > I think I favor "20th century Haskell" myself :-) > Shouldn't that be "21st Century Haskell"? :-) > Hassett wrote: > > > > On 9/8/98 5:10 PM, Andrew Rock wrote > > > > >If Standard Haskell is meant to be a stable target for texts and the like, > > >why not Haskell-

Re: Standard Haskell

1998-09-09 Thread John Launchbury
I think I favor "20th century Haskell" myself :-) Hassett wrote: > > On 9/8/98 5:10 PM, Andrew Rock wrote > > >If Standard Haskell is meant to be a stable target for texts and the like, > >why not Haskell-Ed (for Education), perhaps with a version indication like > >Haskell-Ed-98. > > Unfortun

Int vs Integer

1998-09-09 Thread S.J.Thompson
In the Libraries: state of play document, the sixth point is about Int: > Make Integer be the default integral type instead of Int. This > means that >o If you don't give an explicit default declaration, then an > ambiguous integral type constraint defaults to Integer. >o l

Re: Standard Haskell

1998-09-09 Thread Hassett
On 9/8/98 5:10 PM, Andrew Rock wrote >If Standard Haskell is meant to be a stable target for texts and the like, >why not Haskell-Ed (for Education), perhaps with a version indication like >Haskell-Ed-98. Unfortunately, this carries the risk that the uninformed may think that the language was

Re: Standard Haskell

1998-09-09 Thread Andrew Rock
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:00:43 +0100 (BST) > From: "Stephen H. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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

Re: Straw Poll (name)

1998-09-09 Thread Hassett
On 9/8/98 9:45 PM, Emery Berger wrote >I personally lean towards Haskell 98 myself, but just for >grins (and to hopefully offload this topic from the list): >= Assuming that the Haskell standard will be announced in 1998, I'd prefer that the language specification be called... [ ] Haskell 1

Re: Standard Haskell

1998-09-09 Thread Wolfram Kahl
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