MPTCs and functional dependencies

[Henrik Nilsson]

Dear all,

John Mecham wrote:

 > Yeah, I have been coming to the same conclusion myself. it pains me a
 > lot. (monad transformers! I need thee!) but its not like fundeps will
 > go away, they will just still be experimental so it isn't the end of
 > the world.

But isn't the whole point of Haskell' to standardise those features
that are agreed to be necessary for writing real-world
applications and libraries in a reasonable way?

My concern is not that I fear not being able to compile my programs
after Haskell' is done. I'm worried about too much code not being
Haskell' compliant in the end, and, worse, too many people deciding
that they still have to rely on extensions beyond Haskell' for writing
"real" applications and libraries.

Should this be the case in the end, then Haskell' will qucikly
become irrelevant, and I think that would be very unfortunate.

Now, I'm not saying that FDs are that important, only that it seems
to me they are. I'd be happy to be convinced of the opposite.
But from the above, it at least seems that John M. too actually
says that FDs are important?

Best regards,

/Henrik

-- 
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.