Christoph Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Haskellers, > > >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Simon> We agreed that it would be a Jolly Good Thing if GHC > Simon> could be persuaded to produce GHC-independent Core output, > Simon> ready to feed into some other compiler. For example, > Simon> Karl-Filip might be able to use it. ANDREW will write a > Simon> specification, and implement it. > > a good idea. Before ANDREW will put a lot of effort in the > specification > and implementation, it would be good to have a discussion > about the core > representation that is gradually evolving. Indeed, I plan to publish a draft specification (quite soon) and will be delighted to get feedback from the community before investing heavily in implementation. I'm very glad to hear that others are interested! > There is the risk > that the representation, made by insiders, will be too complicated > to be used by several other people as I feel the core output > currently produced by GHC is. Actually, I am something of an outsider myself (though physically located near a bunch of insiders just at the moment!) so I hope I'll be sensitive to this point. But perhaps Simon should not have written "GHC-independent" Core output; my goal is to expose GHC's existing Core language, or something very close to it, rather than to invent an ideal Core Haskell. So some GHC-specific complexities may be unavoidable. > It would be good to put all stuff related to this topic onto a > WWW page, containing links to relevant papers, conventions, > example pairs (Haskell source,core equivalent) which can be > discussed. A good idea; I'll set up such a page and put the draft there to get things started. > A toy interpreter (e.g., using happy) which > interprets the core language and which is written with the goal of > documentation, not under efficiency aspects, may be helpful. Yes, I had already thought of doing this. Perhaps a type-checker too. > I'm not sure whether you like the idea, but a quick solution for > a small subset of Haskell would, in my opinion, be smarter > to the user, since her or she can get used to the representation > and we have something concrete to discuss. Well, yes. But the entire core language *is* really fairly small, so I am optimistic that a fairly complete job can be done in fairly short order. Cheers, Andrew Tolmach _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
