On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <r...@ro-che.info> wrote:
> > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base. > Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know. > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways. > > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction. Maybe that's a good thing? The current situation doesn't really seem to be working. Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs (as evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other compilers don't use anyway. Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc and try again, perhaps after some code cleanup? Having base in ghc may provide more motivation to separate it properly.
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
