Am Freitag, 3. Februar 2006 00:06 schrieb John Meacham:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:09:35PM +0000, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that FDs are that important, only that it seems to me they are. I'd be happy to be convinced of the opposite. But from the above, it at least seems that John M. too actually says that FDs are important?
Oh, I don't think anyone is disagreeing that they are important. they are just quite underspecified at the moment, and it looks like they will be replaced at some point anyway. It would be great if we can figure out some well specified subset that works for most uses that is ready to put into haskell prime.
John
From the users point of view, the implementation in GHC works quite well and a lot people use it. It would be a pitty if they are not included in the new standard. What is the problem of specifiing what is implemented. If they are replaced in the future we will have haskell'' anyway :-). Cheers, Georg -- ---- Georg Martius, Tel: (+49 34297) 89434 ---- ------- http://www.flexman.homeip.net ----------