Hi all, David Feuer wrote:
I take your concerns about unnecessary breaking changes seriously. And it is certainly true that a large amount of existing code will break. However, I am not at all convinced that the "mental weight" of this change is nearly as great as that of the now-accomplished AMP, in the presence of good error messages.
That may be true (and if pressed, I'd likely agree with you), but it is beside the Graham and I were making: AMP does not necessitate "monad of no return", and the cost of the additional breakage of the latter should thus be justified in terms of how essential it is for other reasons. At least there should be a very compelling argument that the advantages clearly outweighs the costs. And again, in any case like this, I think the burden of proof necessarily rests with those who are arguing for the change.
I think removing error-prone redundancy is a good thing.
Undeniably. But does eliminating this particular redundancy make enough of a practical difference to justify the costs? There are plenty of opportunities to break laws and introducing strictness bugs anyway. See previous e-mail. All the best, /Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science The University of Nottingham nhn@cs.nott.ac.uk This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.