GUI Library Task Force
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:24:56 +1000
Ian Lynagh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote,
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:59:55PM +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> > Currently, there doesn't seem to be much interest in going
> > for a completely new version of Haskell. The idea of adding
> > addenda to H98 and so slowly and in incremental steps move
> > to more functionality seems to be more popular.
> The preface of the report says
> Haskell has evolved continuously since its orignal publication.
> By the middle of 1997, there had been four versions of the
> language (the latest at that point being Haskell 1.4). At the
> 1997 Haskell Workshop in Amsterdam, it was decided that a stable
> variant of Haskell was needed; this stable language is the
> subject of this Report, and is called "Haskell 98".
> Haskell 98 was conceived as a relatively minor tidy-up of Haskell
> 1.4, making some simplifications, and removing some pitfalls for
> the unwary. It is intended to be a "stable" language in sense the
> implementors are committed to supporting Haskell 98 exactly as
> specified, for the foreseeable future.
> I don't think this is compatible with things like adding support
> for the library hierarchy with multiple dots to Haskell 98 as you
> will then be able to write a program that is valid Haskell 98 by
> todays definition but not yesterdays. OTOH if what you mean is
> adding support incrementally to todays *tools* and declaring H98
> with a set of the new features to be Haskell 2 at some point in
> the future then I don't have a problem with that.
The latter. H98 as such will remain untouched.