Ton, Henrick, > | The importance of Haskell is [...] the emphasis it puts on the > | manner in which the total function is decomposed. [...]
> Would the picture be less gloomy if you said "the emphasis I put on..." > rather than "the emphasis [Haskell] puts on..."? At first reading, I would have said no, but I get your point. As long as pure sub-Haskell exists, I can still write pure code. > I think most Haskeller's, agree with you: we would like to strive > for uniformity. But how does one get there, how does one agree > on agreeing? A large part of the answer, I think, is through > experiments, i.e. experimental language features, [...] > And in order to find *good* answers to such questions, one needs > to make use of these features in pretty serious projects, which > in turn implies that there has to be a reasonable way of enabling > and disabling them. And command line arguments just isn't a very > good way of doing that in practice. You've both made good points, which I accept. Although I remain wary of these things becoming too much a part of the pragmatic usage and getting locked in as standard behaviour for applications. But, you've convinced me that goal of concptualy pure pragmatic programming is still a feature of the group. Wiping nose on sleeve, I withdraw to write some more geometric software. Regards, Bruce. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell