Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> I think the report has it about right.
>
> * A conforming implementation of Haskell 1.4 must support mutually recursive
> modules. That is, a collection of individually legal mutually recursive
> modules is a legal Haskell program.
Well, this is not clear from the current wording.
If that is really the intent, I suggest you change the wording.
> * The Report recognises that implementations available in the forseeeable
> future are likely to require the programmer to supply extra type
> information to support separate compilation of mutually recursive modules.
> For example, the implementation may require exported functions to be
> equipped with type signatures.
If implementations require me to fiddle around with interface files,
well, OK -- I might not like it, but that is just a quality-of-implementation
issue. But if the implementations require me to change the source code,
then they're implementing a different language.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
