On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 02:35 -0700, John Meacham wrote: [cut] > > However, note the weasel words. Those are in there on purpose, every > design calls for different solutions. To blanketly say certain > constructs are just wrong to the point of disallowing them in the > language, especially when they are common practice at the moment, just > doesn't seem right.
How can a Haskell user say this? And this is indeed exactly what capability languages do. In fact, this is what almost every language does (for one thing in common practice or another.) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
