On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <r...@ro-che.info> wrote:
> * John Lato <jwl...@gmail.com> [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800] > > 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. > > After base is in GHC, separating it again will be only harder, not > easier. Or do you have a specific plan in mind? It's more about motivation. It seems to me right now base is in a halfway state. People think that moving it further away from ghc is The Right Thing To Do, but nobody is feeling enough pain to be sufficiently motivated to do it. If we apply pain, then someone will be motivated to do it properly. And if nobody steps up, maybe having a platform-agnostic base isn't really very important.
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
