Hi all,
Stephanie wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that
> says "we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in
> the language for ever." Why do we need this extra structure?
>
> I'm worried that this extra structure could be confusing. In
> particular, if someone says "this program is pure Haskell'" what will
> that mean? In practice, will it be clear whether pure Haskell'
> includes the Appendix?
I agree with this. If there is a need to make it clear that some
features are particularly likely to change, I can't see why that
cannot be achieved in the main body of the report. Through a foot note,
or through a highlighted paragraph of some kind.
I worry that tearing apart closely related topics is going to
be difficult as well as resulting in a confusing and somewhat
unstructured report.
The appendix idea has also been mentioned in other contexts,
specifically for records, and I don't like it there either for the
same reasons.
Best,
/Henrik
--
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org//mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
