Re: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Stephen W. <sw...@in...>]

> I agree with Bob and others who would rather drop polymorphic
> equality.  However, you have a point in what you write above, so some
> other, more useful mechanism should be added to replace it.  (By this
> I do not mean type classes.)  
...

I agree that another mechanism could be introduced that allows
efficient implementation of equality.  Dropping polymorphic equality
without such a replacement is bad.

In any case, I remain firmly in the Kennedy/Reppy/Sestoft/Weeks camp
(apologies if I've misrepresented somebody) of not spend our time and
efforts on making incompatible changes to SML 97 and instead spending
it on improvements (like the FFI and compilation management).

I agree with Dave Berry that if we focus on getting a portable C FFI
and compilation management system, then the libraries are much more
likely to follow.  Therefore, we should spend our effort there.
Designing and specifying a new set of libraries is too much effort.
It would be better to let libraries evolve from code that people
write.  The most significant obstacle to this evolution is the lack of
portability between implementations.  In addition to language
differences and lack of compilation management, another reason for
portability problems is the presence of optional modules in the
standard basis and the fact that base types can be different sizes (31
vs 32 bit ints and words).