| I'm considering for the near future to "hack" with the core language
| module of GHC, but I'm not sure whether it's good to use the
| current definitions or data structures because things may change
| with the new GHC.
|
| Is there an agreement that the data structures used for the
| core language will remain or will there be an agreement for
| the structures used in the new GHC?
The Core language is unlikely to change unless there is very good
reason, and I don't know of any at the moment. I occasionally wonder
about promoting the 'Coerce' note to a full constructor, but that's all.
So hack away! Keep us informed, though. What are you planning to do?
| Are there attempts to approach something that is described in
| the paper by Peyton Jones, Launchbury, Shields and Tolmach:
|
| "Bridging the gulf: a common intermediate language for
| ML and Haskell"
Not at the moment. We never got the idea into a form that
satisfied us enough to implement. I certainly don't want to make
GHC significantly more complicated until I'm pretty sure it's
the Right Thing.
Simon
