* John Lato <[email protected]> [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800] > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base. > > Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know. > > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways. > > > > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction. > > > Maybe that's a good thing? The current situation doesn't really seem to be > working. Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs (as > evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other compilers > don't use anyway. Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc and > try again, perhaps after some code cleanup? Having base in ghc may provide > more motivation to separate it properly.
After base is in GHC, separating it again will be only harder, not easier. Or do you have a specific plan in mind? Roman _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
