In respone to:
? From: Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
? Subject: Re: Felleisen on Standard Haskell
? Date: Tue, 04 Aug 98 08:54:48 +0100
>I would be happy to find a name
>that was less grand and final-sounding than 'Standard Haskell' though;
>but more final s
On 04-Aug-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I should note that if one want the programs of an earlier version of a
> computer language should be able top run on a later version, that can be
> described by a monad. So why not implement an upgrade monad in Haskell? --
> It would sol
>That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
>deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
>leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
>the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
>that was less grand and final-soundi
Simon PJ:
> That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
> deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
> leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
> the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
> that was less grand
On 4 Aug, Philip Wadler wrote:
> I would be happy to find a name
> that was less grand and final-sounding than 'Standard Haskell' though;
> but more final sounding than 'Haskell 1.5'.
>
> Actually, Haskell 1.5 sounds exactly like what you want: halfway
> between the first draft and the nex
Lennart wrote:
> It's not only people who use Haskell for teaching that want stability.
> If you've used Haskell for some real project where the current Haskell
> is adequate (which, IMHO, is quite a few) you may not want to rewrite
> gazillion lines of code.
I'd like to second that. I have tw
Scott Turner wrote:
>At 18:08 1998-08-04 +0900, Frank A. Christoph wrote:
>>>[...] 'Standard Haskell' [...] 'Haskell 1.5'.
>>[...] Haskell--? [...] (-1) Haskell [...] Pre-Haskell
>
>Others wrote "Haskell 98" and "Teaching Haskell".
>
>"Haskell 2000" uses a nice, round number that is close enoug
At 21:01 +1000 98/08/04, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>On 04-Aug-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I should note that if one want the programs of an earlier version of a
>> computer language should be able top run on a later version, that can be
>> described by a monad. So why not imp
About the Great Debate on the name of Standard Haskell:
Simon PJ wrote:
> I would be happy to find a name
> that was less grand and final-sounding than 'Standard Haskell' though;
> but more final sounding than 'Haskell 1.5'.
That expresses something I disliked all along about the Standard Haske
> The version of Haskell with with we will be able to reach a
> significant larger audience
> will be a version that will have at least MPC's, such as used in
> graphical user interfaces etc.
This is the point I was originally making, and is reason to push the
Haskell 2 effort along. Indeed, I f
> I think Standard Haskell is a good thing since it opens up
> the possibility of making non-compatible changes in Haskell 2.
What will you do with your old programs once you start writing programs
in Haskell 2?
It would be really great if implementations could support BOTH Standard
Haskell and
> >That said, the more I think about it, I don't really believe that
> >"Standard Haskell" will accomplish much.
>
> I feel that way, but I think that Richard Bird and other people using
> Haskell in teaching may disagree. (Come to think of it, wouldn't that
> category include you too?)
I admit
At 10:12 +0200 98/08/04, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>It's not only people who use Haskell for teaching that want stability.
>If you've used Haskell for some real project where the current Haskell
>is adequate
...
I think Standard Haskell is a good thing since it opens up
>the possibility of making
>That said, the more I think about it, I don't really believe that
>"Standard Haskell" will accomplish much. The fact is that everyone
>wants many of the features in Haskell 2, and so even today would prefer
>using an implementation that is probably not fully compliant with
>anything that is "off
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
> deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
> leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
> the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
> th
Simon writes:
>That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
>deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
>leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
>the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
>that was less grand a
> >That said, the more I think about it, I don't really believe that
> >"Standard Haskell" will accomplish much. The fact is that everyone
> >wants many of the features in Haskell 2, and so even today would prefer
> >using an implementation that is probably not fully compliant with
> >anything t
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
that was less grand and final-s
> In any case, I hope that Simon will follow his urge to get Standard
> Haskell done with Real Soon Now, even if there is no overwhelming
> consensus on certain issues, so that we can then concentrate on Haskell
> 2.
That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
deal, but eve
> That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
> deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
> leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
> the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
> that was less grand
At 18:08 1998-08-04 +0900, Frank A. Christoph wrote:
>>[...] 'Standard Haskell' [...] 'Haskell 1.5'.
>[...] Haskell--? [...] (-1) Haskell [...] Pre-Haskell
Others wrote "Haskell 98" and "Teaching Haskell".
"Haskell 2000" uses a nice, round number that is close enough, given that
Haskell 2 won'
Phil Wadler writes:
I bumped into Matthias Felleisen at ECOOP, and he offered the
following advice regarding Standard Haskell, based on his
experience with Scheme:
1. Don't standardize Haskell until it is useful to the
run-of-the-mill programmer. A minimum set of libraries shoul
I bumped into Matthias Felleisen at ECOOP, and he offered the
following advice regarding Standard Haskell, based on his experience
with Scheme:
1. Don't standardize Haskell until it is useful to the
run-of-the-mill programmer. A minimum set of libraries should include
- URLs [Jon's favo
23 matches
Mail list logo
