On 21 January 2011 23:59, austin seipp <a...@hacks.yi.org> wrote: > Perhaps Max can > elaborate on why this design was rejected in favor of the current one, > so we can see how and where it falls down, and what we really want.
The only reason really is that it added a lot of mechanism. From the top of my head: * Parsing etc for PHASE pragmas that declared phase objects * A new namespace for phases * Stuff to gather declared phases from all imported modules during compilation * A built-in phase for each core pass * A solver that ordered core passes and plugin passes according to the phases So it was a lot of trouble for relatively little gain. In an effort to keep the delta against GHC small I threw it out in favour of the much, much simpler design we have today. > Thomas pointed out the Scala compiler plugin design document, so I'll > be sure to read over it this weekend when I get the chance to cook up > ideas. The Scala plugins project was just starting when I was working on GHC plugins so there was no design doc I could refer to at that time. Shame :-( Thanks for taking the lead on resurrecting plugins, Austin! Cheers, Max _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users