Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:59:55PM +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > > > Currently, there doesn't seem to be much interest in going > > for a completely new version of Haskell. The idea of adding > > addenda to H98 and so slowly and in incremental steps move > > to more functionality seems to be more popular. > > The preface of the report says > > Haskell has evolved continuously since its orignal publication. > By the middle of 1997, there had been four versions of the > language (the latest at that point being Haskell 1.4). At the > 1997 Haskell Workshop in Amsterdam, it was decided that a stable > variant of Haskell was needed; this stable language is the > subject of this Report, and is called "Haskell 98". > > Haskell 98 was conceived as a relatively minor tidy-up of Haskell > 1.4, making some simplifications, and removing some pitfalls for > the unwary. It is intended to be a "stable" language in sense the > implementors are committed to supporting Haskell 98 exactly as > specified, for the foreseeable future. > > I don't think this is compatible with things like adding support > for the library hierarchy with multiple dots to Haskell 98 as you > will then be able to write a program that is valid Haskell 98 by > todays definition but not yesterdays. OTOH if what you mean is > adding support incrementally to todays *tools* and declaring H98 > with a set of the new features to be Haskell 2 at some point in > the future then I don't have a problem with that.
The latter. H98 as such will remain untouched. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
