On 12/4/06, Aaron Tomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, though, I agree with you. I don't see any reason at this point to limit the dependencies of the ExternalCore module. It seems to me that a revised reference implementation could use the GHC as a library, and still be small and simple enough to serve as a nice definition of the language.
Yes, that's a reasonable position, I think. At the moment, I see it as being more urgent to have External Core working again than to have a reference implementation, though obviously both are important.
However, I thought it possible that I might be missing something, and that there could be other reasons for avoiding dependencies in ExternalCore, so I asked.
It's nice to have as few dependencies as possible, but on the other hand, making it maintainable is important too, seeing the problems that have occurred in the past with maintaining External Core and keeping it consistent with the rest of GHC. Obviously, I'm speaking only as a former External Core user and bug-fixer, these opinions are not that of the GHC Team, do not taunt Happy Fun Ball, etc. Cheers, Kirsten -- Kirsten Chevalier* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Often in error, never in doubt "I think somebody loved me once / but I cannot remember why"--Reel Big Fish _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
