RE: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Peter S. <se...@di...>]

I completely agree with Andy Kennedy 
 
 * that there is a need for a fairly simple, typed functional language,
 * that SML'97 fits the bill well,
 * that the syntax of case etc is not what keeps programmers away, and
 * that it is unclear who would benefit from `evolving' Standard ML in
   the radical ways proposed.

Let me add 

 * that in all probability, lack of interoperability is a serious 
   obstacle to widespread adoption (and SML.NET may fix that),
 * that Standard ML is better left as it is, and
 * if you want to develop a different language, call it something else.

[Various name proposals left out, upon careful consideration]

Peter