On 13 Aug 2008, at 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why is separate compilation important?
I'm a little shocked that anyone on this list should have to ask this
question. Two people have asked it now.
The simplest answer is that unless
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 13 Aug 2008, at 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why is separate compilation important?
I'm a little shocked that anyone on this list should have to ask this
question. Two people have asked it now.
On 13 Aug 2008, at 11:10, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 13 Aug 2008, at 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why is separate compilation important?
I'm a little shocked that anyone on this list should have to ask
Andrew,
[...]
For the record, I have no problem with modules depending on each other,
so long as they only depend on their well-defined interfaces.
Finally, as chris suggests, if separate compilation is important to
you, why not have a flag in ghc -frequire-hi-boot or something?
Well,
G'day all.
Quoting C.M.Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But isn't this exactly the point I was trying to make!? The whole point,
to me, in functional programming, is that we shouldn't have to worry about
the underlying implementation.
It is not exposing an underlying implementation detail to mandate
Andrew,
But isn't this exactly the point I was trying to make!? The whole point,
to me, in functional programming, is that we shouldn't have to worry about
the underlying implementation.
It is not exposing an underlying implementation detail to mandate that
modules should have
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To be honest, ghc compiles things so fast (at least on any of
my systems) that I couldn't care less if it took 10 times as long (I would
however like some added convenience for that time spent)
Have you ever compiled GHC itself? Just
On 13 Aug 2008, at 13:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To be honest, ghc compiles things so fast (at least on any of
my systems) that I couldn't care less if it took 10 times as long
(I would
however like some added convenience for that time
G'day.
Quoting C.M.Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However I saw no real argument for not having cyclic inclusions. You
say we shouldn't have to spend time writing hi-boot files, and yet
you also think
that GHC should not do it automatically. So we have to restrict all
programmers to never
Hello,
The Haskell'98 report does not specify if/how recursive modules should
work. I wrote a paper a long time ago that formalizes and implements
this feature (http://www.purely-functional.net/yav/publications/modules98.pdf).
I very much doubt that separate compilation is much of a problem in
Andrew,
Thanks very much for your reponse. It was very helpful; this makes a lot
of sense!
Regards,
Chris.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting C.M.Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I saw that, thanks! I guess this is because it's hard to compile a
mutually
On 12 Aug 2008, at 11:59, C.M.Brown wrote:
Andrew,
Thanks very much for your reponse. It was very helpful; this makes a
lot
of sense!
And yes, some people think that this is a bug in the specification.
I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually)
recursive
I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually)
recursive functions, even though they come with an efficiency
penalty. Why should we not allow (mutually) recursive modules, even
though they too come with an efficiency penalty. This is even an
example where the
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually)
recursive functions, even though they come with an efficiency penalty.
Why should we not allow (mutually) recursive modules, even though they
too come with an efficiency
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually)
recursive functions, even though they come with an efficiency penalty.
Why should we not allow (mutually) recursive modules,
On 12 Aug 2008, at 16:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure that it does make a lot of sense -- we allow (mutually)
recursive functions, even though they come with an efficiency
penalty.
Why should we not allow (mutually) recursive
The problem is not mutually recursive modules. Plenty of statically
typed languages support mutually recursive modules.
The problem is that it's impossible in general to say what the
interface of a module is by examining the module alone. This is a
very unusual property as real-world
C.M.Brown wrote:
I don't really see this as being any kind of real issue at all. Surely all
GHC needs to do is to concatenate all the modules together, alpha-reduce
the import/export relations and do a compile/type check over the
concatenated module.
FWIW, I agree (in principle -- I haven't
G'day all.
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why is separate compilation important?
I'm a little shocked that anyone on this list should have to ask this
question. Two people have asked it now.
The simplest answer is that unless your program fits in cache, it
takes longer to compile
G'day all.
Quoting Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As far as I know the real difficulties come from mutually recursive
class definitions.
I wouldn't be surprised, because that's a more blatant instance of the
same problem. With classes and instances, there is no way to specify
whether
cmb21:
Hi,
I have a question about cyclic inclusions. It appears in the Haskell 98
report that mutually recursive modules are allowed, however GHC complains
at any Haskell project that has cyclic inclusions (implicit or explicit).
Am I right in thinking that this is a GHC limitation?
Hi Don,
GHC provides a mechanism to support mutually recursive modules, but
you must break the cycle manually, via a boot file.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/separate-compilation.html#mutual-recursion
Yes, I saw that, thanks! I guess this is because it's
G'day all.
Quoting C.M.Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I saw that, thanks! I guess this is because it's hard to compile a
mutually recursive module...
It's because you don't need to declare the types of exported definitions.
Consider, this highly artificial example:
module A where
23 matches
Mail list logo
