How does this interact with typechecker plugins? I assume they would still happen in GHC's process.
I've also been thinking about designing and implementing a mechanisms where programmers could specify custom pretty-printers for their types, and GHC would use these pretty-printers in error messages. This action would also probably need to be in the same process. Would either of these ideas be affected? My guess is "no", because we should be able to be selective in what gets farmed out to the second process and what stays locally. Richard On Nov 17, 2015, at 5:10 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks - I've been thinking about changing the way we run interpreted code > so that it would be run in a separate process. It turns out this has quite a > few benefits, and would let us kill some of the really awkward hacks we have > in GHC to work around problems that arise because we're running interpreted > code and the compiler on the same runtime. > > I summarised the idea here: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/RemoteGHCi > > I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts around this, > particularly if doing this would make your life difficult in some way. Are > people relying on dynCompileExpr for anything? > > Cheers, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
