> This isn't muddling implemenation with language design. The language design
> says mutual recursion is OK. A particular implementation supporting separate
> compilation will typically require a variety of "help", such as a Makefile
> with accurate dependencies. Requiring type signatures, or in
> 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.
>
> * The Report recognises that implementations availabl
I support Fergus and Alisdair on this. Let's have a clear statement
in the report of the minimum that constitutes a legal Haskell program.
Implementors, as always, are free to do something even more cool. -- P
| Why muddle implementation with language design? Pick a design that
| we know everyone can implement -- e.g., exported functions must have
| type declarations -- and stick to that. When the state of implementations
| improve, the specification for Haskell 1.5 can change accordingly. -- P
Act
