On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Christopher Done wrote:
> Thanks! It's strange to think there was once no GHCi. This is an interesting
> piece of Haskell implementation history! =)
It was really exciting when ghci showed up. No need to separately
load everything into
On 27 June 2016 at 13:31, Christopher Done wrote:
> On 27 June 2016 at 10:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
> >>
> >> * Compile
On 27 June 2016 at 10:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
>>
>> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>>
>> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
>> * Keep hold of the Core source
>> *
On 27 June 2016 at 04:11, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> I don't understand what the bytecode format has to do here. Since
> your suggestion is to just store Core you can just compile to object
> code.
True, I could compile to either as long as I can link it dynamically.
> > Any input
On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>
> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
> * Keep hold of the Core source
> * Interpret the Core AST within Haskell
>
Interestingly, the first
I am not sure I entirely understand your proposal, but a good
way of finding out if it works is giving it a try.
Excerpts from Christopher Done's message of 2016-06-26 06:28:55 -0400:
> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>
> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
>
I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
* Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
* Keep hold of the Core source
* Interpret the Core AST within Haskell
* When encountering built-in/primitives (or things from other libraries),
we compile that Core term and link it as an