Re: [Sml-implementers] Subject: Standard ML

[John H. R. <jh...@re...>]

In message <715...@ap...>, David Matt
hews writes:
>
...
> 
> First,  is there any reason to believe that programming languages must
> change?  Certainly languages must respond to their environment to the
> extent of adding new libraries and modules.  I think everyone accepts
> that.  Where there is disagreement is whether it is necessary to change
> the fundamentals, the elements with which the Definition is concerned.
> If one looks at other widely used and certainly viable languages such as
> C I cannot see any evidence that they are changing in that area.

C is a poor choice of example.  A substantial revision of the specification
of C (called C99) was just completed a year or so ago.  In fact, I doubt
that you can name any language in widespread use that hasn't had periodic
revision.

Implementations are going to experiment with extensions.  SML/NJ for example,
has lazyness, or patterns, vector patterns and expressions, and soon
functional record update.  These are all features that aid in programming
and should be considered for standardization across implementations.
I would hope that we can continue to call this evolving specification
"Standard ML."

	- John