On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:51AM +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote: > > Second, a warning about "loss of sharing" may befuddle beginners (who > > are usually not taught to write type signatures at the start). > > Are standards documents the place for prescribing which warnings > should be raised, and under what circumstances? > > If someone is using GHC, and has specified -O2 then clearly something > that causes vastly more time is a problem. If someone is learning > Haskell and is using Hugs then they probably couldn't care less. > Perhaps some warnings should be left up to the implementation to > decide...
My ultimate point was that the possibility of a warning should carry very little weight (if any) when analyzing the pros and cons of a language change. If you want to argue that a warning would mitigate a disadvantage of a change, you need to think about when the warning would be emitted, which I agree should be outside the scope of a standards discussion. So I am just suggesting that we simplify the discussion by not talking about warnings (which suggestion I will follow as soon as I hit send!). Andrew _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime