Hi Thomas,
does that mean your project has started at last?-) Judging
from recent Haskell Weekly News issues, I wasn't the only
one who had despaired of ever hearing from you again;-)
Since you've only just joined the discussion, and apparently
haven't yet caught up on recent email here, you might find
it helpful to check your project Wiki page,
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcApiStatus
where we've added a few suggestions and references to
relevant info and threads you might have missed. In particular,
check last week's spin-off
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-ghc/2008-July/043531.html
The only reasons I could imagine against including the instances
in the GHC Api are (a) size (would need to be measured)/build
times (needs workaround by splitting instances over two files, or
compiler bug fix) and (b) needing different instances (can be
provided for by not importing and implicitly re-exporting the
instances from GHC.hs at the beginning). So, for starters, the
instances could be available in the GHC library, but via an
explicit import. By the time GHC itself starts using the instances
(hence implicit re-export becomes unavoidable), their shape,
especially for the abstract types, will hopefully have settled down.
Btw, the ghc trac wiki has page timelines and diffs, as well
as a global timeline with RSS feed for those who want to
follow Wiki updates:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/timeline
Hope to hear a lot about your project now - it might be
a good idea to follow the lead of those Haskell GSoC projects
that have added their project blogs to Planet Haskell:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-June/044643.html
Hth & Welcome,
Claus
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
