On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:51:08PM +0000, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> I'm not convinced on that. You'd have to specify a surprisingly low-level
> language to allow that to the extent the real optimisation nuts want, and
> that's something that really should be beyond the scope of the standard.
> Even if we stick with something simple it's extremely likely that we'd end
> up specifying a dictionary-passing implementation of typeclasses -
> something that seriously disadvantages some valuable extensions and
> implementation techniques (it'd really mess up JHC from what I can tell,
> for example).
I am thinking we don't specify any particular translation scheme. just a
sudset of the language that is considered 'core' that every haskell
program could _potentially_ be reduced to. whether compilers actually
take the 'example' route given in the report is a different manner. for
example jhc might leave in typeclasses because they can't be desugared
into pure haskell without GADTs. I wouldn't want to see a dictionary
passing implementations of type-classes prescribed either :)
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
