Am Montag, 28. April 2008 06:29 schrieben Sie: > Wolfgang Jeltsch: > > Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 05:13 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty: > > > […] > > > > > > Hence, anything that is *important* to change, we should change now. > > > > Although I can follow your arguments, I thought that the large and > > disruptive changes should be done for Haskell 2. > > Depends what you mean by Haskell 2. If it is an experimental language > that shares some superficial similarities with Haskell, sure we may > have Haskell 2. If you mean a serious successor of Haskell with the > expectation that many/most Haskell users will eventually move to > Haskell 2, then no. Haskell has been gaining a lot of momentum > recently. That's good and bad, but surely makes it hard to change the > trajectory. (This is, of course, just my personal opinion.) > > > If they should really be done now, we should also fix a lot of other > > things. For example, the Num hierarchy, the Functor/Applicative/Monad > > hierarchy, the fact that there exist Alternative and MonadPlus although we > > have Monoid, the fact that we cannot have contexts like (forall a. Monoid > > (m a)) which is the source for the last problem, the fact that we don’t > > have class aliases, ugly names like fmap and mappend, etc. > > As Lennart and Ganesh have argued, the amount of breaking changes that > we we will be able to fit in without causing serious problems is > limited. > > Manuel
Hello again (after a long time), the things I proposed above are mostly library changes which could mostly be made non-disruptive if we had class aliases. Would this make them acceptable for you? Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime