> > But note that "same functionality" is one thing, > > having "separate compilation" and "program extensibility" too > > is another one. > > As I said, and as is well-known, "extensibility" is a red herring in > this context - you merely trade one dimension of extensibility for > another one.
I am not going to fight for extensibility. It's just that I believe that there is a value in a direct correspondence as opposed to a transcription. I cite from the OOHaskell abstract: "The [...] code [...] demonstrates that OO code translates into OOHaskell in an intuition-preserving way: essentially expression-by-expression, without requiring global transformations." I would like to add a peer-reviewed clear reference to the OOHaskell paper about the red herring that you mention. I don't have such a reference. May I kindly ask you to offer a few for selection? Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
