On 2008-04-30, Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:18:10PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
And there is a lot that clearly isn't battle tested in a reasonable new
form, though the current practice is widely agreed upon to be broken.
Examples include all monads having
I agree with Neil. Translators are very difficult to do right, except for
the most trivial transformations.
Changing tabs to spaces is about as far as I would trust an automatic
translator.
-- Lennart
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I think
Hi
I think Henrik's criteria are pretty close to perfect.
As I have argued before on the committee list, I also think we should *not*
worry about backwards incompatible changes too much in cases where a simple
automatic translation from H98 to H' code is possible. Even for a large
project,
Hi all,
Manuel wrote:
As I have argued before on the committee list, I also think we should
*not* worry about backwards incompatible changes too much in cases
where a simple automatic translation from H98 to H' code is possible.
Yes, tools can and should help with migration, and we should
Hello Neil,
Thursday, April 24, 2008, 12:21:41 PM, you wrote:
Some questions:
don't forget about most complex part: does this tool will convert
human minds? :D
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Manuel wrote:
As John Launchbury has said, given Haskell's current rise in
popularity, anything that we do not fix with H' will be much harder, if
not impossible, to fix in the future.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:21:41 +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
That is a very good point. Perhaps we're already a
Chris Smith wrote:
I'm definitely not arguing for this ($)
associativity change, for example, and my objection is the backward
compatibility. But ultimately, it's more like a combination of
incompatibility and the lack of a really compelling story on why it
should be one way or the other. I
2008/4/24 Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
3. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not arguing for this ($)
associativity change, for example, and my objection is the backward
compatibility. But ultimately, it's more like a combination of
incompatibility and the lack of a really compelling
There appears to be some question as to the backward compatibility goals
of Haskell'. Perhaps it's worth bringing out into the open.
From conversations I've had and things I've read, I've always gathered
that the main goal of Haskell' is to address the slightly embarrassing
fact that
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two Haskell' is.
-- Johan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Johan Tibell wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two
Hello Philippa,
Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 10:53:54 PM, you wrote:
Current practice often involves removing certain warts anyway - the MR
being a great example.
it's already in ghc for a years and doesn't affect too much code. we
need a solid base of a language to write to, to learn, to
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two Haskell' is.
I would hope it is both. Some
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Niklas Broberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would hope it is both. Some changes simply cannot become current
practice since they would not be compatible with existing code, and
the only place that such changes *could* be made is in a new language
version.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:52:18 +0200, Niklas Broberg wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know
Johan Tibell wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two Haskell' is.
The stated
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Chris Smith wrote:
I don't think I agree that fail in the Monad typeclass is a good example
here, or necessarily that there is a good example.
We should remember that there is a cohesive community of Haskell
programmers; not a bunch of unrelated individuals who
Simon Marlow:
Johan Tibell wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two Haskell' is.
18 matches
Mail list logo
