Hello, On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Neil Mitchell<ndmitch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > >> Some good reasons for having a separate interface are: they can be >> human-readable and human-writable (ghc's do not fulfill this criterion); >> they can be used to bootstrap mutually recursive modules in the absence of >> any object files (ghc uses .hs-boot files instead); other tools can extract >> information about modules without having to understand either the full >> Haskell syntax or the object language. > > An additional reason is that for some changes of .hs file (where just > the implementation changes) the .o file can be regenerated without > touching the .hi file. This allows more accurate build dependencies > and less recompilation.
Is that really the case? I thought that GHC may add code to the interface files for cross-module inlining purposes, which means that changing the implementation might change the interface too. -Iavor _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
