And conversely, someone who have made a C-to-Haskell binding may not be a Haskell guru.<br><br>What about Arrows: do you think one should master them so that he could be regarded as experienced?<br>It's kind of hard to put a border between casual Haskell and skilled Haskell, since it's a very wide language and your knowledge will depend on what you have already done.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/3 Thomas Davie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tom.davie@gmail.com">tom.davie@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:<br>
<br>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
> Hash: SHA1<br>
><br>
> On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:<br>
>> Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)<br>
><br>
> Who says they do, or should?<br>
<br>
</div>Dons rather implied it... The suggestion is that someone who hasn't used hsc2hs is an inexperienced Haskeller... I'd bet though that there are many *extremely* experienced haskellers who have never once in their life written a C binding.<br>
<br>
Bob_______________________________________________<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>