Talk:Haskell features

hamming number
I think the original program for the hamming numbers involving # and the @ syntax might have been better. This version is more basic but that version demonstrated most aspects of Haskell as opposed to simply functional programming. jbolden1517Talk 02:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Haskell features redirect
I'm not sure what to do, but given that the current haskell standard is Haskell2010, its inappropriate for "haskell features" to redirect to an article titled "haskell 98 features". Should this article be indeed "Haskell Features", so possibly it needs some tag that it's out of date, to add a section on features added in 2010 version. Or should those be separate articles - but that would have too much overlap, surely? I'll provisionally do the former, but ofc if someone has a better idea etc.. (user aryah, sry won't bother logging in)31.147.62.62 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, um, actually I'm not sure how to retitle it (w/o copy/pasting the thing to where the redirect is, but that sounds messy, so perhaps its wrong). So I'd just ask anyone checking this talk page to consider this proposal, of making this be the article about 'current' haskell features, rather than just about the previous standard, given how extensive the article is... 31.147.62.62 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Primes one-liners attribution

 * : by walpen at codegolf, 2012-06-11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillNess (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

order of sections
As a total noob to functional programming and Haskell, I would like to say it would be useful to have the section that defines types above the section that uses those types in examples. (i.e.: tom, Maybe, Left/Right all have to be implicitly understood, then you read the section explaining them at the bottom.)

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.56.20 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)