On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:21:27PM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I, for one, would love it if you and others felt able to contribute to
> the Haskell-as-a-library interface (i.e. what it should look like to the
> client). Whether we'd be anywhere near done for Haskell' I'm less
> certain.
Dear all,
Claus Reinke wrote:
> what I have in mind are things to come, which would be quite
> different from the initial steps we could reasonably expect Haskell'
> to take. initially, a separate libary may be an acceptable start; but
> ultimately, I don't want two separate Haskell implementati
| (*) a standard haskell' api providing the commands of ghci/hugs
| style interactive systems would be a start, together with an
| annotated AST, parser/typer/pretty printer. more detailed
| specifications could be left for future revisions.
A reasonable suggestion, but I'm unsure what
On 12 February 2006 22:43, Claus Reinke wrote:
> [an innocent question on ghc-users just reminded me of another
> missed opportunity in previous Haskell definitions: by chosing to
> ignore the very idea of implementations, they have left tool
> implementors in a limbo.]
>
> these days, there i
| (*) a standard haskell' api providing the commands of ghci/hugs
| style interactive systems would be a start, together with an
| annotated AST, parser/typer/pretty printer. more detailed
| specifications could be left for future revisions.
Claus,
A reasonable suggestion, but I'm uns
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:30:47PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Jan-Willem Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >* A renamer turns out to be awfully useful/necessary; this raises
> > the sticky question of how imports are specified. It'd be nice *not*
> > to have to dredge up the ol
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:05:00AM -0500, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> I agree strongly with the need for a standard parser/AST/typechecker
> to enable tools and extensions. That's why Fortress contains an AST
> specification! So naturally I'd love it if Haskell had one, too. It
> should pr
| the point is to standardise an api to functionality that all
| haskell implementations will need in some form or other and that all
| haskell tools should be able to depend on.
something in line of Template Haskell?
not really. it would be nice to see TH standardized (at least,
I'd like to se
Jan-Willem Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>* A renamer turns out to be awfully useful/necessary; this raises
> the sticky question of how imports are specified. It'd be nice *not*
> to have to dredge up the old .hi files, as they tended to require
> compilers to extend the .hi form
"Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| the point is to standardise an api to functionality that all
| haskell implementations will need in some form or other and that all
| haskell tools should be able to depend on.
something in line of Template Haskell?
-- Gaby
___
Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Because of all this, if you make a standard like this, you basically
| dictate a large part of the implementation, and it seems no one wants
| to follow the same implementation path...
Indeed. I'm not sure ASIS is as successful as it was intende
On Feb 12, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
...
these days, there is some momentum for providing Haskell with
various tools for refactoring, documentation, profiling, tracing,
instance generators, analyzers, pre-processors for extensions,
editor modes, interactive interfaces (textual, g
Claus,
I totally agree with you on this. With experience of developing HaRe
and realising the limitations of using one compiler front end over
the over. It would be so much easier to have a standard API - so that
projects such as HaRe could be easily ported to another system if
needs be -
eeek! how negative!-)
would all pessimists and nay-sayers please return to their seats,
fasten their seat-belts and refrain from smoking - the haskell'
process is preparing for lift-off!
by cs standards, Haskell is _old_. it already was old when java
entered the scene, and java is not exactly th
> [an innocent question
I know this was me, and various things I do would be a LOT easier if
this standard interface did exist, but I don't think its possible.
To compare GHC, Hugs and Yhc - they have very little in common. Hugs
is written in C, the other two in Haskell, so for a start there is no
15 matches
Mail list logo
