Just for the record:
Jan Skibinski writes (comment on my divagations on
mathematical "goodies" in Haskell):
... then you worry about "jury"
and "their benevolent consideration". Forget about
the later - there is no jury and never be.
BUT I KNOW THAT!! I KNOW, I KNOW...
I am not worrying
On 02-May-2000, Jerzy Karczmarczuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me it is obvious that Simon PJ, the Oregon Strong Team,
Lennart, and others who actively work/ed *on the language
itself* have different priorities! Changing a mature
programming language is dangerous, everybody knows that
(in
Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First off, from what I remember of it, I like the BAP, too, having
stumbled over the limitation of the Haskell types a couple of times.
+ What extra features would be really desired and, first of
all - WHY? How will it make Haskell
A sane mathematical structure - or rather: sane description
of math structures in Haskell is something which worries
me for years. On this list, on funct. newsgroup and elsewhere
this is a recurring, cyclic theme.
-- And we have still this horrible Num hierarchy, which does
not correspond to
It appears to me that we have reached some impasse
in a design of basic mathematical structure for
Haskell 2. Sergey's proposal "Basic Algebra Proposal"
is there, but for variety of reasons (a language
barrier being probably one of them) it does not seem
Jan Skibinski writes:
It appears to me that we have reached some impasse
in a design of basic mathematical structure for
Haskell 2. Sergey's proposal "Basic Algebra Proposal"
is there, but for variety of reasons (a language
barrier being probably one of them)
