Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime
Fergus Henderson wrote: > > On 14-Aug-2000, Benjamin Leon Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ah, a testable hypothesis! If you are right, then you should be able to > > provide an example of a language that meets the requirements of writing > > both low-level kernel code and most user applications equally well for > > the bulk of the programmers working with the language! > > Well, how about Modula II and Ada? > Or maybe even better, Modula-3? Sietse Achterop
no subject (file transmission)
Concerning Int vs. Integer: Wouldn't it be better if Standard Haskell had "save" Int's, that is a version that simply would abort the program when encountering a overflow. This can be implemented without too much of a penalty on the more relevant benchmarks. And if Int32 and friends from the Hugs/GHC libs are promoted to the standard library in some form then the report has to change on two points: 1. state that an exceptional result (for all fixed precision types?) yield an error, instead of being undefined. 2. note that the standard library will contain an integer without overflow checking That implementations would, for the moment, implement this new Int by just using the current situation only would be a minor temporary inconvenience. On a general note, should executing a program not always yield a defined result? That is, either yield the correct result OR produce an error message? Sietse Achterop
re: Felleisen on Standard Haskell
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 enough, given that >Haskell 2 won't be finished until well after that year. 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. Therefore, IMHO, we should reserve a "glamourous" name such as Standard Haskell for that version of the language. Why not just Haskell for the current version? My 2cts. Sietse Achterop Sietse's signature file.
