[MLton] Evolving SML
Daniel C. Wang
Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:18:34 -0700
Matthias Blume wrote:
> We suggest that such
> proposals include the following:
> 1. A classification (bug resolution vs. extension).
> 2. A rationale.
> 3. A precise formulation in form of a delta to the current Definition.
> 4. A brief analysis of possible implications on properties of the
> language, its implementations, and existing programs.
5. A test suite sutiable for testing other implementations for conformance.
I think it would also be highly desirable to have a shared reference
executable specification for testing conformance.
Extending HamLet for this purpose would be a good thing.
BTW To me there is a great deal of wasted effort in constantly having
every SML implementation rengineer the frontend and the Basis Library.
Before this begins I think all the SML implementors ought to agree on
what set of features they wish to innovate on and what set of features
they wish to share. There is a great deal of wasted effort in
rengineering pieces of an SML system which should be shared. Those
pieces which can be shared should be collboratively maintained to be
kept in sync with the spec.