Class System current status

Henrik Nilsson nhn at Cs.Nott.AC.UK
Fri May 12 14:54:45 EDT 2006

Hi all,

Stephanie wrote:

 > 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?
 > I'm worried that this extra structure could be confusing. In
 > particular, if someone says "this program is pure Haskell'"  what will
 > that mean? In practice, will it be clear whether pure Haskell'
 > includes the Appendix?

I agree with this. If there is a need to make it clear that some
features are particularly likely to change, I can't see why that
cannot be achieved in the main body of the report. Through a foot note,
or through a highlighted paragraph of some kind.

I worry that tearing apart closely related topics is going to
be difficult as well as resulting in a confusing and somewhat
unstructured report.

The appendix idea has also been mentioned in other contexts, 
specifically for records, and I don't like it there either for the
same reasons.



Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
nhn at

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.

More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list