Sven Panne wrote:
>
> Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > [...] C++ stores type information in the symbol to resolve overloading.
> > Ghc might do a similar thing. Than again Haskell overloading is
> > nothing like C++ overloading so maybe not.
>
> There's nothing wrong with this kind of name mangling: When the library
> is updated, the names for procedures/functions/methods/members/[insert
> your favourite name here] of the same type stay the same. My guess is
> that lambda lifting and cross-module inlining are the real problems in
> the case of Haskell.
Your probably right. I believe C++ also has problems with inlining.
>
> > [...] I have a better idea. Have a pragma to allow the preprocessing
> > to be done my some arbitrary haskell function. [...]
>
> Hmmm, apart from the fact that in this case every compiler has to
> include some kind of Haskell interpreter
I don't think this is a problem.
> it sounds like a real
> sledgehammer: Most people don't want to write a program transformer
> just to replace isAlphanum by isAlphaNum. "Keep the common case simple".
> As an additional tool it could be nice.
>
I should stress that there should ALSO be a standard default
preprocessor which will handle cases like that. The standard one will
be used if no other preprocessor is given.
--
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
