On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:57PM +0000, Ross Paterson wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
There is one more reason to leave concurrency out of the standard. Some experts (like Hans Boehm) argue, that concurrency can't be added to the language as a library. http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf This is true for many imperative programming languages. Haskell seems to be an exception: http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2005-December/009417... We don't have any problems with ensuring good cooperation between mutable variables and concurrency synchronisation primitives, because the language doesn't have mutable variables, they are delivered in the concurrency library - the variables _are_ the synchronisation primitives. If we add concurrency to the standard, we'll be in a strange situation. In future discussions about language design and concurrency, all we will be able to say to highlight Haskell's strengths will be something like this: The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as a library without introducing any problems... but we have concurrency in the standard anyway... ;-) Best regards Tomasz -- I am searching for programmers who are good at least in (Haskell || ML) && (Linux || FreeBSD || math) for work in Warsaw, Poland