Meta-point: backward compatibility

[Johan Tibell]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Niklas Broberg
<niklas.broberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I would hope it is both. Some changes simply cannot become current
>  practice since they would not be compatible with existing code, and
>  the only place that such changes *could* be made is in a new language
>  version. Like you say, fail in the Monad class is one such issue that
>  would not be backwards compatible, and couldn't become a current
>  practice without some help. Chicken or egg first?

You're of course right. Haskell' could be both. It probably should be
as the next Haskell standard (after Haskell') will probably be several
years in the future. It would be a shame to wake up the day after GHC
fully implements Haskell' and notice that nothing has changed and my
old annoyances are still there.

-- Johan