On 17-Mar-2003 Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| there is no need to use such hacks. it is not dificult to add suport
| for mutually recursive modules to an implementation directly.
| unfortunatley none of the working haskell implementations support
| recursive modules,
Simple in principle, not
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing deep. GHC is just a fairly big thing and one of its
assumptions is that it is compiling one module at a time. There'd
be quite a bit of chuffing around to remove this assumption.
Nothing fundamental, but real work.
The other big problem
hi,
Alastair Reid wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing deep. GHC is just a fairly big thing and one of its
assumptions is that it is compiling one module at a time. There'd
be quite a bit of chuffing around to remove this assumption.
Nothing fundamental, but real work.
| there is no need to use such hacks. it is not dificult to add suport
| for mutually recursive modules to an implementation directly.
| unfortunatley none of the working haskell implementations support
| recursive modules,
Simple in principle, not so simple in practice. If it was easy to
hi,
i can't really argue with simon he is the real compiler expert.
and i am not familiar with the inner workings of GHC, so my argument is
even weaker. and in any case discussions on the haskell mailing list
very rarely have any effect except for their entertainment value during
boring
hi,
Elke Kasimir wrote:
No Problem at all for Haskell, but a problem for certain
often-used Haskell compilers and interpreters...
Factoring out the common part does not work in examples like
above, so the only way is to collapse everything, and to reduce
class constraints as much as is possible -
