Haskell Language Design Questions
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:50:04 +1100
On 29-Dec-2000, Doug Ransom <Doug_Ransom@pml.com> wrote:
> 1. Is the lack of dynamic binding of functions by design or because it was
> too much effort to be justified at the time the language was designed? In
> object oriented programming there can be several implementations of the same
> interface, and they can be stored in the same collection.
It's just something that didn't make it into Haskell 98.
Hugs and ghc offer a language extension for that.
It will almost certainly be in the next revision of Haskell. See
> 2. It seems to me that the Maybe monad is a poor substitute for
> exception handling because the functions that raise errors may not
> necessarily support it.
Hugs and ghc also have exception handling extensions.
There's also a paper or two on that. I hope you'll forgive the
self-citation, but the only one for which I happen to have a reference
on-hand is this one:
A semantics for imprecise exceptions. Simon Peyton-Jones,
Alastair Reid, Tony Hoare, Simon Marlow, and Fergus Henderson.
Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming
Language Design and Implementation, May 1999.
Fergus Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> | "I have always known that the pursuit
| of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.