> * There have been lots of messages --- more so than most topics that
> appear on the list. Obviously there is lots of interest; the topic
> seems be one with which most people have encountered problems in
> the past so are keen to do something about.
I think Richard has it right here. There is a clear desire.
What is less clear is (a) how to proceed, and (b) who is willing to
invest the effort in documenting existing libraries and writing new ones.
That is
a) define the *process*
b) add the *content*
My hope is that if we solve (a) in a way that makes it easy for
people to contribute, then (b) will solve itself. In particular,
it would be great if someone, or some group of people, wrote a
more approachable description of the Haskell 98 prelude and standard
libraries.
So far as (a) goes, I believe that Andy Gill and John Peterson are
working up some concrete ideas.
Simon
PS: I don't think that multi-param type classes/arrows/polytypic programming
etc should be regarded as a reason not to document Haskell98 libraries
as they stand, or not to write new ones. I think it will take quite a while
for these new features to settle down, and longer still to understand
how their introduction should affect library design.
Freeze and sell! (as Joe Armstrong says) While in parallel forging ahead
with new stuff.
