On 2006-05-13, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephanie Weirich: >> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >> > My suggestion is this: >> > >> > * Specify MPTCs in the main language >> > >> > * Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative >> > interpretation of FDs). >> > >> > * A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and >> > programmers can write programs against it. But >> > we are advertising specifically that we aren't sure, one way >> > or the other, whether FDs will stay in the language for ever >> > >> > >> Simon, >> >> Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that >> says "we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in the >> language for ever." Why do we need this extra structure? > > IMHO the right thing is to decouple finalising an FD/AT appendix from > finalising the main body of Haskell'. This is clearly more easily > realised when the delayed material is out-of-line.
Meh. I'd really like a revised numeric prelude to be able to use MPTCs with FDs. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org//mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
