There is a chicken and the egg problem with this argument. Historically Haskell' has only considered changes that have been actually implemented.
I would encourage the language standard to follow suit, but we survived a similar autocratic minor change to Num with very little ecosystem disruption. -Edward On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Tetley <stephen.tet...@gmail.com>wrote: > Has anyone surveyed the in-print textbooks, tutorials, or tried to > assess how much Haskell (H98, H2010, Glasgow Haskell?) is used in > teaching? > > Having the wrong hierarchy is a minor annoyance to us members of the > cognoscenti, but a change outside a revision of the language standard > could leave a lot of beginners and the teaching material they rely on > stranded. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
