> On Mar 17, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Richard Eisenberg <r...@richarde.dev> wrote:
>
> My vote is that the manual should be self-standing. References to proposals
> are good, but as supplementary/background reading only. My gold standard
> always is: if we lost all the source code to GHC and all its compiled
> versions, but just had the manual and Haskell Reports (but without external
> references), we could re-create an interface-equivalent implementation. (I
> say "interface-equivalent" because we do not specify all the details of e.g.
> optimizations and interface files.) We are very, very far from that gold
> standard. Yet I still think it's a good standard to aim for when drafting new
> sections of the manual.
I strongly agree. Tracking down the evolving proposals, is rather
a chore...
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
