Thanks for the response Sylvain.
> put all the Core types in GHC.Core.Types and move everything
operation from GHC.Core.Op to GHC.Core?
That would work as well. But I still favour the renaming approach.
Almost all of these passes are optimization, and the few who are not are
just there to support
the optimizations so their placements still makes sense. To me anyway.
If people reject the renaming your suggestion would still be an
improvement over .Op though.
Cheers,
Andreas
Sylvain Henry schrieb am 03.04.2020 um 23:29:
Hi Andreas,
"Op" stands for "Operation" but it's not very obvious (ironically when
I started this renaming work one of the motivation was to avoid
ambiguous acronyms... failed).
The idea was to separate Core types from Core
transformations/analyses/passes. I couldn't find something better then
"Operation" to sum up the latter category but I concede it's not very
good.
But perhaps we should do the opposite as we're doing in GHC.Tc: put
all the Core types in GHC.Core.Types and move everything operation
from GHC.Core.Op to GHC.Core?
Cheers,
Sylvain
On 03/04/2020 22:26, Andreas Klebinger wrote:
Hello devs,
While I looked at the renaming a bit when proposed I only just realized
we seem to be using Op as a short name for optimize.
I find this very unintuitive. Can we spare another letter to make this
GHC.Core.Opt instead?
We use opt pretty much everywhere else in GHC already.
Cheers
Andreas
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
