On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Greg Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > syntax we would like. Does that make sense? I take it that you agree > that we should separate the discussion of semantics from > implementation: this is a perfect example of why.
If we can describe semantics without concern for the possibility/needs of implementation, then I've got some _great_ proposals I'd like to make! --Gershom _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
