Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure which position you're preferring here. I lean a bit
> towards using the old names for the new functions (the ones with free
> functions) and finding new names for the old functions (the ones with
> closure arguments).
That would be my preference as well. Keep the existing standard names,
but change their type signatures to reflect what Hugs and nhc98 can
actually implement. Add new names with the old signatures for what
ghc can additionally implement via its concurrency model.
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
