21 Apr
2009
21 Apr
'09
12:45 a.m.
On 21 Apr 2009, at 04:59, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 20 Apr 2009, at 10:12 pm, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
I disagree. First of all, UHC states explicitly that some features are not supported (and probably never would be). Secondly, it seems like almost nobody uses (n+k)-patterns,
How can you possibly know that?
I can't; that's why I've said "seems like".
If I want something that's almost a Haskell compiler but not quite, with some interesting extensions, I've known where to find Clean for a long time.
That's a strange desire. Personally, I want a compiler for a nice, simple, and useful language. I don't want a Haskell compiler; it just so happens that GHC is the best approximation.