On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 04:54:35PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 25/02/13 18:05, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > >Personally, I don't think the language report should be specifying the > >content of libraries at all, > > It's not that straightforward, because the language report refers to > various library functions, types and classes. For example, integer > literals give rise to a constraint on Num, so we have to say what > Num is. Guards depend on Bool, the translation of list > comprehensions refers to "map", and so on. > > It could be whittled down certainly (we actually removed a few > libraries in Haskell 2010), but there's still a core that is tied to > the language definition.
Yes, OK, my language was a bit strong: s/at all/any more than necessary/ Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
