Dear all, in the "mission statement" I read
We will strive to only include tried-and-true language features,
but the current discussion seems to have a wider focus, i. e. it is more of a wish list. Indeed I think that this is a good idea (ask (future) Haskell users what they want) but it might not be the original goal of the Haskell-Prime effort. On the other hand, design-by-committee (or by wiki, call it what you want) has its problems. Just for our enjoyment, here are two quotes from Stroustrup: Design and Evolution of C++ (1994) (ch. 12.6, p. 269f): * ... Tom Cargill got a lot of applause for the .. suggestion that anyone who proposed a new feature for C++ should also propose an old feature of similar complexity that should be removed... * Jim Waldo .. followed up with a further idea: Proposers of new features should be required to donate a kidney. That would make people think hard before proposing, and even people without any sense would propose at most two extensions. I like to stress that when discussing an extension, we should strive to clearly state the problem that it tries to solve, and we should check carefully what solutions are already known (within Haskell, or within other languages/libraries). Best regards, -- -- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 -- ---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ -------