important news: refocusing discussion
ross at soi.city.ac.uk
Fri Mar 24 07:27:40 EST 2006
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:30:57AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> So I believe the issue is mainly one of perspective. Until I wrote this
> email I hadn't thought of (4) and my preference was for (2), but now I
> quite like the idea of (4). We would include concurrency in Haskell',
> but provide a separate addendum that specifies how imlementations that
> don't provide concurrency should behave. One advantage of (4) over (3)
> is that we can unambiguously claim that Haskell' has concurrencey.
And we can unambiguously state that there is only one Haskell'
implementation (though a second is on the way).
Sure, concurrency is essential to many applications, and should be
precisely specified. But it is also irrelevant to a lot of uses of
Haskell (except for ensuring that one's libraries are also usable on
concurrent implementations, as JohnM said). A specification of the
language without concurrency would be at least as valuable (having more
implementations). Perspective, as you say -- most people agree we need
both -- but I think you're a bit too negative about the smaller variant.
More information about the Haskell-prime