| Haskell 98 has never supported separate compilation. That's why we
| have hi-boot files (or something similar).
|
| So, yes, I'd like to know how the language designers intend to support
| separate compilation in the next version.
H98 has nothing to say about the separate compilation; it's
On 05-Feb-2003, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Haskell 98 has never supported separate compilation. That's why we
| have hi-boot files (or something similar).
|
| So, yes, I'd like to know how the language designers intend to support
| separate compilation in the next
PS: Approximately how many lines of code is GHC these days?
~78k lines of code, ~63k lines of comments in the compiler itself. The
runtime has a further ~50k lines of C.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, I mean constant-steps, rather than single steps. Could you give an example to
what you are
describing?
Sure. Just thought you'd like to play with the idea yourself first:-)
If you limit beta-reduction to deal only with unary abstractions,
there's little chance of deconstructing an
Thanks for the example. It is quite sophisticated.
I can see how you select an element randomly using the function parameters
(it's cheating actually because lamda calculus will still reduce this it in
steps, so it works for Haskell implementation because it does things
smarter)
One thing I
G'day.
On 05-Feb-2003, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H98 has nothing to say about the separate compilation; it's an issue for
the implementation.
H98 indeed says nothing about separate compilation, and it is indeed
an issue for the implementation.
What H98 does is it defines
hello,
Andrew J Bromage wrote:
...
What H98 does is it defines a language for which separate compilation
is at best extremely difficult and at worst virtually impossible
without extra information which is not part of H98 (such as GHC's
hi-boot files).
...
why do you think separate compilation
G'day all.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Iavor S. Diatchki wrote:
why do you think separate compilation is difficult to achieve in Haskell
98?
Because of type inference over recursive module imports. Determining
the type of a function may, in general, require inferring types
Andrew J Bromage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Iavor S. Diatchki wrote:
why do you think separate compilation is difficult to achieve in
Haskell 98?
Because of type inference over recursive module imports. Determining
the type of a
G'day all.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:05:56PM -0600, Jon Cast wrote:
I'm not sure I follow this. If you change the type of a value exported
from a given module, that's a public change, no? And if you don't, why
should re-compilation be needed?
Consider this:
module A where
import B
{-
Andrew J Bromage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:05:56PM -0600, Jon Cast wrote:
I'm not sure I follow this. If you change the type of a value exported
from a given module, that's a public change, no? And if you don't, why
should re-compilation be needed?
G'day all.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:28:05PM -0600, Jon Cast wrote:
I think I see what you're saying. I still maintain, however, that,
since you've changed the type of B.b (admittedly implicitly), and B.b is
exported from B, that you've changed B's interface.
There is a reason make is
12 matches
Mail list logo
