From: Ken F. L. <kf...@it...> - 2001-09-24 11:19:01
|
Matthias Blume <bl...@re...> writes: > Please, no name-calling! No name-calling was intended! If I called Bob any names (other than Bob or "an author of the Definition") then I apologies and play the "I'm not a native english speaker" card. > If Bob is willing to listen to SML implementers and users when they > ask for revisions, But many implementers did *not* ask for revisions! Here is my count of the replies from the maintainers of the different SML compiliers: Two said please make the changes in a new language, two said please only make minor changes , one was enthusiastic about changes, one I had dificulties interpret (could be both for and against changes), and one has been suspiciously quiet. > Asking Bob, and perhaps Robin or Mads or Dave to sit back and watch > is not realistic, IMO. I was not asking Bob (or any of the other authors) to stay out of the discussion. I was just pointing out that not all of us think that revisions are just good. > > That revisions are do-able does not necessitate revisions. > While this is true, the revisions are necessary anyway. I'm nor sure I agree with the "necessary" part. Personally I have a few quibbles with the Definition, but I think that the stability of the language is more important. > Nearly every major implementation of SML has already departed in > more or less significant ways from the text of the definition. But they do it with different grace. Moscow ML, for example, warns loudly if you use any of the extensions (even withtype in signatures). > > But we don't want to repeat the fiasco of the Standard Basis Library > > (for those involved, apologies for being so blunt). > What exactly is the "fiasco"? I have elaborated for John in a private mail. My main compliants are that the spec for SBL isn't available on paper (preferably downloadable on the web) and that the library is designed in a closed manner. > > ... This is the first revised version, and we foresee no others. > This was written in 1997 when there was still a strong expectation that SML > would be succeeded by ML2000. We all know what happened to the latter, so > things have changed. Sorry, I don't know what happened to ML2000 (except that it is delayed judging from the name), has the effort been dropped? Whatever happened (since it sounds bad), I would hate to see the same thing happen to SML. --Ken |