On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:53:35 PM UTC+3, Tom Ellis wrote:
My +1 was to keeping a record of small but breaking changes that, if made at inception, would have benefitted what Haskell is now. What anyone else wants to *do* with such a record is up to them.
A separate +1 to this emphasis on keeping track of possible or desired (even if unfeasible) improvements. Here is my another argument for this: academic papers about Haskell or functional programming do not have to keep to the actual Haskell syntax. IMO, they could benefit in clarity by switching to some pseudo-Haskell with `:` instead of `::` for typing, `::=` instead of `=` in `data` definition, etc: the description language of the underlying abstraction should be independent from the current implementation syntax. Alexey.