Talk:History of Haskell/Version 2
(→Comments on Version 2 (11 Aug 2006) of "The History of Haskell")
Revision as of 22:47, 20 August 2006
Comments on Version 2 (11 Aug 2006) of "The History of Haskell"
Please use the Wiki to add your comments here. Include your name and the date. You can do this with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
To edit the page, you need to log in: click the login link at the bottom of the window. If you don't already have an account, the login page lets you create one in 30 seconds. See HaskellWiki:Contributing.
A note "(SLPJ: done)" means I have done something about the comment; thank you! I won't change the v2 Postscript, though, otherwise we'll all get confused.
(SLPJ: done) JaredUpdike 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) p.36 typo "libarary" should be "library"
(SLPJ: done) EricWilligers 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Typo. page 12, column 1. "Note also that p is defined only in the second clause" => "Note also that xp is defined only in the second clause"
(SLPJ: done) BerniePope 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Spelling in bibliography. Herrington -> Herington (the HUnit author).
(SLPJ: done; it was 1.1) BerniePope 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Possible contradiction. On page 5 it says "let" expressions appeared in Haskell 1.1 for the first time. Whereas, on page 20 it says: "The use of the function called "let" reflects the fact that "let" expressions were not in Haskell 1.0 (They appeared in Haskell 1.2)."
(SLPJ: I've changed it to say "...in a number of ways, especially its adoption of type classes". More details welcome) BerniePope 08:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Minor quibble. On page 42 it says that Mercury was influenced by Haskell in a number of ways, including its "syntax". I think that connection is tenuous at best. Indeed, the following web page makes a point of the fact that Haskell's and Mecury's syntaxes are different: Comparing Mercury with Haskell
(SLPJ: done) EricWilligers 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Typo. page 16, column 1. "Programs like this are said to be embiguous" => "Programs like this are said to be ambiguous"
[(SLPJ: done) EricWilligers 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Phrasing. page 17, column 2. "extension of Haskell 98: every Haskell current implementation supports" => "extension of Haskell 98: every current implementation supports"
(SLPJ: done) EricWilligers 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Possible Typo page 39, column 2. "Bit[n] -> Bit[m] -> Bits[n+m]" => "Bit[n] -> Bit[m] -> Bit[n+m]" (unless "Bits" was intended by section author)
EricWilligers 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Comment page 13, column 2. The symbol _|_ is introduced in section 5.4 without being explained, and isn't linked with the (more searchable) term "bottom" until section 5.5. A reader may form the impression that Haskell programs contain special non-ASCII characters. Thus introducing section 5.4 with some background information such as the following would allow sections 5.4 and 5.5 to be understood by a wider audience. "Expressions that fail to evaluate normally are considered to evaluate to bottom, _|_, a value that each type implicitly contains."