I wasn't suggesting changing GHC to *use* generic traversals. Rather, I was suggesting to initially use the simplest available technology to *provide* the possibility of generic operations to clients of the GHC API. They can choose whether or not to use them.
Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Chaddaï Fouché [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 18 July 2008 15:44 | To: Simon Marlow | Cc: Simon Peyton-Jones; [email protected]; Max Bolingbroke | Subject: Re: Data/Typeable/Uniplate instances for GHC types | | 2008/7/18 Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | > That approach worries me. We could add generic traversals all over the | > place, and while none of them is a "bottleneck", the overall effect could | be | > quite significant. | > | > The right approach I believe is to keep an eye on compile times when making | > these kind of changes, and if at any point the compiler slows down by a few | > percent, then back off. Timing a compile of GHC itself is good for this. | > | | I recently added Data and Typeable instance to all AST datatypes | directly in the code of GHC, the compilation time didn't seem affected | by this addition. Of course I didn't try to add Uniplate, Term ... | instances as well. | | -- | Jedaï _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
