ndmitchell:
> 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.
I'm very suspicious about the power/weight ratio of this change.
Normally, for simple value-level stuff like this, provide both options:
mapM / forM. =<< >>=
So how about, rather than break things, just provide an alternative to ($).
-- Don
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
