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