On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 08:48:00AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > > That's true. Its architecture is rather different to the rest of GHC's > type checker, and I'd been thinking that the obvious thing to do would > be to use the same monad and style as the main type checker. For > example, the utils/ext-core one reports only one error, and doesn't > track line numbers. Still, it has the merit of existing! Presumably > you can always use it stand-alone to check your core progs? >
Not right now, though, because it doesn't handle code produced by GHC 5, since some of the primitive module names are different. (That would probably be easy to change, I just haven't done it.) > I'm not sure what the best approach is. Perhaps writing a new typechecker in the style of the GHC typechecker, but using the Core typechecker as a guide to what the type rules actually are, would be best. I'll think about it more after I get back from ICFP. -- Kirsten Chevalier * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Often in error, never in doubt _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
