Stephanie Weirich: > Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > > My suggestion is this: > > > > * Specify MPTCs in the main language > > > > * Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative > > interpretation of FDs). > > > > * A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and > > programmers can write programs against it. But > > we are advertising specifically that we aren't sure, one way > > or the other, whether FDs will stay in the language for ever > > > > > 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?
IMHO the right thing is to decouple finalising an FD/AT appendix from finalising the main body of Haskell'. This is clearly more easily realised when the delayed material is out-of-line. Manuel _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org//mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
