Hi > I think it is reasonable to look closely at the motivations for > wanting to retain the $ as is. Looking through this thread, I can find > only a single complaint raised (albeit an important one), namely > backwards compatibility. Yes, such a change would likely break quite a > few my modules. But like Cale, I would never have expected H' to be > fully backwards compatible with H98, and thus there would have to be > some way to migrate anyway. This one seems pretty simple, just let the > old Prelude be Haskell98.Prelude and import that in old code. Of > course changes that break backwards compatibility should not be made > frivolously, but I find it hard to buy having only that as an argument > for a change that otherwise seems highly reasonable.
I don't want to have to do a brain mode-change between "in a Haskell98.Prelude" module and "in a Prelude" module. I don't want to copy code between modules and have it do different things. We also should remember that a large number of academic papers are written in Haskell, and unlike libraries, don't get "update releases" made. This is not a minor tweak - it will break a massive number of programs. > ps. Though to be honest I really don't see why we don't simply add > another operator instead of changing an existing one... :-) (£) anyone?* This seems a massively more sensible idea. Thanks Neil * I appreciate that a lot of non-English users might find it a bit difficult to hit this key! _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime