On 2/20/08, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it can't or doesn't want to maintain it, it throws it away. The info > is optional: if it's there, it has to be correct but it doesn't have to > be there. [snip] > > Just like in Haskell, they don't have a semantics - they are essentially > comments. If a tool (like GHC) decides to interpret them somehow (this > should probably be enabled by a flag), that's a completely different > matter. This is of course not entirely optimal but should do for a start. >
Perhaps I don't understand, but I see a contradiction between "[pragmas] don't have a semantics" and "if it's there, it has to be correct". "Correct" implies a semantics. Anyway, I'd be happy to concede the point to you that implementing an input path for External Core with a well-defined semantics is not hard. It has, after all, been done before. Besides having an independent semantics, we want an implementation that won't succumb to bit-rot the way the last one did. Again, that may be an impossible goal. At this point, I've said my piece, and if you find it unconvincing, it may be that I'm not expressing myself well or it may be that I'm just wrong; you're welcome to present evidence for the latter by doing the implementation work involved, whenever you have free time :-) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier * http://cs.pdx.edu/~tjc * Often in error, never in doubt "They say the world is just a stage you're on...or going through." --Jim Infantino _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
