Type design question

Konrad Hinsen hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:11:29 +0200

On Tuesday 29 July 2003 04:10, Andrew J Bromage wrote:

> There is no ISO standard Haskell.  There is Haskell 98, but that was
> deliberately designed to be a simpler language than what came before
> it, with no experimental features, partly to make teaching the language
> easier.  (You can't write a textbook for a moving target.)

True. However, for those who, like me, haven't yet seen much beyond textb=
the textbook standard is the reference. It is not so easy to figure out w=
extensions are experimental or satisfy a few persons' taste and which are=
likely to stay.

> The situation with Haskell today is somewhat analogous to C++ _during_
> its standardisation process, when people were proposing all kinds of

I think that C++ was a lot worse, even the accepted features (e.g. templa=
didn't work the same with all compilers. All non-trivial code came with a=
list of supported compilers.

Konrad Hinsen                            | E-Mail: hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-
Rue Charles Sadron                       | Fax:  +33-
45071 Orleans Cedex 2                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France                                   | Nederlands/Francais