3 Feb
2011
3 Feb
'11
10:41 a.m.
John Smith wrote:
On 03/02/2011 15:54, Stephen Tetley wrote:
I'd contend the proposal is too disruptive to be independent of a language revision, so I'd vote no on the proposal as it stands.
What do you mean by "independent of a language revision"? The idea is that, if accepted, this will be proposed for Haskell'.
As someone (Simon M?) quite correctly pointed out, if we do want to change the standard libraries then this should be done in one big revision. Lots of small changes which break vast amounts of existing code aren't a good idea, IMO. Roman