Wolfgang,
To be fair, the current version of Helium does support some
overloading,
Really? Are you talking about version 1.5?
No, version 1.6, which was released just last week. See http://
www.cs.uu.nl/helium/.
Cheers,
Stefan
___
Haskell-p
Am Dienstag, 7. Februar 2006 14:11 schrieb jur:
> [...]
> To be fair, the current version of Helium does support some overloading,
Really? Are you talking about version 1.5?
> [...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@h
On Jan 31, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 19:33 schrieb Isaac Jones:
[...]
Have you looked at the Helium language / compiler? It's a
stripped-down version of Haskell for teaching. Maybe that's what
you're actually suggesting? I think this is a great
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 19:33 schrieb Isaac Jones:
> [...]
> Have you looked at the Helium language / compiler? It's a
> stripped-down version of Haskell for teaching. Maybe that's what
> you're actually suggesting? I think this is a great idea :)
I think the current Helium version causes t
On Jan 31, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Isaac Jones wrote:
It would be _great_ if someone on the committee, or anyone for that
matter, would summarize the discussion weekly. Perhaps Donald will do
that as part of Haskell Weekly News, but I'm sure he'd be glad to have
some help.
Any volunteers?
I'll vo
> > Could a member of the committee arrange for a Haskell'-weekly
> > message, please (similar to Haskell weekly, but collecting news
> > headers and links from haskell', wiki, track, and internal committee
> > discussions)?
>
> It would be _great_ if someone on the committee, or anyone for that
"Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No language can serve all of the people all of the time, but I think
>> we should just do our best with a single standard. I think that the
>> complexity of multiple languages / layers / standards would not be
>> worth the payoff.
>
> My original unde
| My original understanding of the Haskell' effort was that it was *not*
| intended as going for "Haskell 2", but rather as an update of Haskell
98.
|
| In other words, the target is Haskell 2005:
|
| - anything that was tried and tested by the end of 2005 is a potential
| candidate for incl
No language can serve all of the people all of the time, but I think
we should just do our best with a single standard. I think that the
complexity of multiple languages / layers / standards would not be
worth the payoff.
My original understanding of the Haskell' effort was that it was *not*
in
jur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
>> Dear all, in the "mission statement" I read
>>
>>> We will strive to only include tried-and-true language features,
>>
>> but the current discussion seems to have a wider focus,
>> i. e. it is more of a
On Jan 25, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
Dear all, in the "mission statement" I read
We will strive to only include tried-and-true language features,
but the current discussion seems to have a wider focus,
i. e. it is more of a wish list. Indeed I think that this is a good
id
Dear all, in the "mission statement" I read
> We will strive to only include tried-and-true language features,
but the current discussion seems to have a wider focus,
i. e. it is more of a wish list. Indeed I think that this is a good
idea (ask (future) Haskell users what they want)
but it migh
12 matches
Mail list logo
