> I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually) > recursive functions, even though they come with an efficiency > penalty. Why should we not allow (mutually) recursive modules, even > though they too come with an efficiency penalty. This is even an > example where the efficiency loss is *only* at compile time, and only > happens once, so it's somewhat a better situation than allowing > mutually recursive functions. > > I'd say it falls very heavily into the ghc-bug category, not the spec > bug category (even if there's reasons for the bug existing in ghc).
Perhaps it would be better for GHC to allow compilation of cyclic inclusions via a flag? -fcyclic or something? Or, to do it by default unless a -fno-cyclic flag is raised? It does seem strange that the only way to compile cyclic modules is to hack together a build using hi-boot files. Regards, Chris. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
