Wang <em...@ningwang.org>
*Cc:* Kavon Farvardin <ka...@cs.uchicago.edu>
*Subject:* *RE: Removing Hoopl dependency?*
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> writes:
Snip
That would leave Sophie free to do (B) free of the constraints of GHC
depending on it; but
7 09:50
> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; Michal Terepeta <
> michal.terep...@gmail.com>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
>
>
> *Cc:* Kavon Farvardin <ka...@cs.uchicago.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Removing Hoopl dependency?
>
>
>
>
a typechecker plugin.
Simon
From: Sophie Taylor [mailto:sop...@traumapony.org]
Sent: 12 June 2017 09:50
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; Michal Terepeta
<michal.terep...@gmail.com>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Cc: Kavon Farvardin <ka...@cs.uchicago.edu>
Sub
Sophie Taylor writes:
> I don't see why not, other than possible duplication of effort when it
> comes to some of the basic algorithms.
>
> Speaking of which, what policies are there on bringing in new dependencies
> to GHC, both compile-time and run-time (e.g. possible
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:05 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
>
> Snip
> >
> > That would leave Sophie free to do (B) free of the constraints of GHC
> > depending on it; but we could always use it later.
> >
> > Does
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
Snip
>
> That would leave Sophie free to do (B) free of the constraints of GHC
> depending on it; but we could always use it later.
>
> Does that sound plausible? Do we know of any other Hoopl users?
CCing Ning, who is currently
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Sophie Taylor [mailto:sop...@traumapony.org]
> *Sent:* 11 June 2017 14:09
> *To:* Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com>; Simon Peyton Jones <
> simo...@microsoft.com>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
>
>
> *Cc:* Kavon
.org>
Cc: Kavon Farvardin <ka...@cs.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Removing Hoopl dependency?
Hello, fellow workers!
So, I'll pop in here with my thoughts.
I'm writing an independent intermediate language library for functional
languages, and I looked at using Hoopl. I would use it, but there
Hello, fellow workers!
So, I'll pop in here with my thoughts.
I'm writing an independent intermediate language library for functional
languages, and I looked at using Hoopl. I would use it, but there are
several reasons why I'm not currently doing so:
1) Combining facts from different domains
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:50 AM Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> > Maybe this is the core of our disagreement - why is it a good idea to
have Hoopl as a separate package in the first place?
>
>
> One reason only: because it makes Hoopl usable by compilers other than
GHC. And,
But equally, stackage is a major part of the haskell ecosystem.
As such, implications and paths forward need to be considered.
Alan
On 9 June 2017 at 11:16, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 2017-06-09 at 09:50:51 +0200, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
Hi Simon,
On 2017-06-09 at 09:50:51 +0200, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs wrote:
[...]
>> Stackage only allows one version of each package
>
> I didn’t know that, but I can see it makes sense. That makes a strong
> case for re-doing it as a new package hoopl2
The limitations of Stackage's
> package is harder than not doing so. E.g. template-haskell is a separate
> package.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: Michal Terepeta [mailto:michal.terep...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 June 2017 19:59
> To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com
is a separate
package.
Thanks!
Simon
From: Michal Terepeta [mailto:michal.terep...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 June 2017 19:59
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Cc: Kavon Farvardin <ka...@cs.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Removing Hoopl dependency
Michal Terepeta writes:
> Maybe this is the core of our disagreement - why is it a good idea to
> have Hoopl as a separate package in the first place?
>
> I've pointed multiple reasons why I think it has a significant cost.
> But I don't really see any major benefits.
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:05 PM Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> Michael
>
> Sorry to be slow.
>
> > Note that what I’m actually advocating is to *finish* forking Hoopl. The
> > fork really started in ~2012 when the “new Cmm backend” was being
> > finished.
>
> Yes, I know.
]
Sent: 29 May 2017 12:53
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: Re: Removing Hoopl dependency?
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:30 PM Simon Peyton Jones
<simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Is there
Is there really a compelling case for forking Hoopl? I was talking to Kavon
last week about doing exactly the opposite: using Hoopl more wholeheartedly!
Before going ahead with this, let’s remember the downsides
·If we fork Hoopl, improvements in one place will not be seen in the
Cool, thanks for quick replies!
I've sent out https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3616
Cheers,
Michal
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
19 matches
Mail list logo