Re: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Martin E. <ma...@di...>]

Hi there,

Matthias Blume <bl...@re...> writes:

> Ken Friis Larsen wrote, replying to Bob Harper:
>
> > 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 like the SBL a lot, and I am not one of 
> its designers.)

Ken, I agree with Matthias Blume on this issue; the Standard Basis
Library is definitely a success, partly because all Standard ML
implementations support most of the library, but in particular for the
following reasons:

  1. The basis library is very stable; it has not changed since 1997.

  2. The newest specification is published on the web, which makes the
     specification available to all implementers, programmers, book
     writers, and others.

  3. Quite a few programs (also large ones, such as theorem provers
     and compilers) have been developed using the library and the
     library is documented in several text books.

I think we owe much to the editors of the library for not falling into
the trap of continuously suggesting modifications of the
library. Revisions have occured only when absolutely necessary, which
make programs that use the library highly portable over time. With the
stability of the library, the editors have treated all users with deep
respect.

Regards,

Martin Elsman