There is a chicken and the egg problem with this argument. Historically Haskell' has only considered changes that have been actually implemented. I would encourage the language standard to follow suit, but we survived a similar autocratic minor change to Num with very little ecosystem disruption. -Edward On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Tetley <stephen.tetley@gmail.com>wrote:
Has anyone surveyed the in-print textbooks, tutorials, or tried to assess how much Haskell (H98, H2010, Glasgow Haskell?) is used in teaching?
Having the wrong hierarchy is a minor annoyance to us members of the cognoscenti, but a change outside a revision of the language standard could leave a lot of beginners and the teaching material they rely on stranded.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe