Type design question

[Ross Paterson]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:04:22PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:11:29PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> > I think that C++ was a lot worse, even the accepted features (e.g. templates) 
> > didn't work the same with all compilers. All non-trivial code came with a 
> > list of supported compilers.
> 
> True.  If we had more Haskell implementations, we might be in the
> same boat.
> 
> Our situation is much simpler.  Code is either written for Haskell 98,
> or for "Glasgow extensions".

Almost.  There's Haskell 98, H98 plus common extensions (the baseline
for the hierarchical libraries), a larger language accepted by both GHC
and Hugs, and then there's GHC.