On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
I disagree about the reasonableness of many of your assumptions ;-)
Great! =)
On 15-Feb-2001, William Lee Irwin III
(1) lists are largely untouchable
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
I want to be able to write a Prelude that has lists as a strict data type, rather than a lazy data type.
Hmm, sounds like infinite lists might have trouble there, but I hereby
cast out that assumption.
On 15-Feb-2001, William Lee Irwin III
(4) I/O libs will probably not be toyed with much (monads are good!) (5) logical values will either be a monotype or a pointed set class (may be too much to support more than a monotype)
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
I think that that replacing the I/O libs is likely to be a much more useful and realistic proposition than replacing the boolean type.
I won't pretend for an instant that replacing the Boolean type will
be remotely useful to more than a handful of people.
On 15-Feb-2001, William Lee Irwin III
(9) probably no one will try to alter application syntax to operate on things like instances of class Applicable
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
That's a separate issue; you're talking here about a language extension, not just a new Prelude.
I'm not sure one would have to go that far (though I'm willing to be
convinced), but either way, we need not concern ourselves.
On 15-Feb-2001, William Lee Irwin III
(10) the vast majority of the prelude changes desirable to support will have to do with the numeric hierarchy
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:14:14PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
s/numeric hierarchy/class hierarchy/
I suppose I was trying to narrow it down as far as possible, but if people really are touching every place in the class hierarchy, then I can't do better than that. Cheers, Bill