| In short, less of an either/or, more of a both/and.
|
| from reading between the lines I get the impression that you’d prefer
| (A) to happen first, in order to do (B) more easily. If (A) was
| successful, we even have to worry less about bad decisions while doing
| (B), as it would be
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.03.2013, 14:04 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
Your follow-on remarks (appended below) about which implicit Prelude
you get if you (say) import only `base-pure` are well-taken, but they
apply equally to (B). Worth adding a section to the Wiki page to
discuss this?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
Most people won't care and will continue to depend on enough to get
Prelude.
Let me just put this out here so keep it in the back of our heads: most
people don't care about this whole thing (splitting base) so
Excerpts from Remi Turk's message of Wed Mar 13 13:09:18 -0700 2013:
Thanks for your quick reply. Could you elaborate on what a bit of
overhead means?
As a bit of context, I'm working on a small library for working with
(im)mutable extendable
tuples/records based on Storable and ForeignPtr,
Hi there,
I am not hugely familiar with compilers or the particulars of GHC, but am
interested in creating a few programs which manipulate Haskell source code
in particular ways. Two things I would like to be able to do are:
- Swap every occurrence of a particular type for a different / dummy
Hi Craig --
you might look at:
http://goto.ucsd.edu/~rjhala/llvm-haskell/doc/html/liquidtypes/Language-Haskell-Liquid-GhcInterface.html#v:getGhcInfo
http://goto.ucsd.edu/~rjhala/llvm-haskell/doc/html/liquidtypes/src/Language-Haskell-Liquid-GhcInterface.html#getGhcModGuts1
for an example
