Haskell 2 (whatever it is), does not have the goals that were stated for Haskell&#39;, so I can accept disruptive changes.<br><br>Haskell&#39; has (had?) some very clear goals, and breaking every existing program was not one of them.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch &lt;<a href="mailto:g9ks157k@acme.softbase.org">g9ks157k@acme.softbase.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 09:30 schrieb Lennart Augustsson:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">&gt; Haskell has now reached the point where backwards compatibility is something<br>
&gt; that must be taken very seriously.<br>
<br>
</div>Would you be opposed to a Haskell 2 which would break lots of things?<br>
<br>
&gt; […]<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<font color="#888888">Wolfgang<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-prime mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-prime@haskell.org">Haskell-prime@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>