On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 10:49 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > > | It's too large and complicated to use for small things. E.g., if you > > | want to just dash off a little something that needs to evaluate an > > | expression... Well, you can use the GHC API. But this is highly > > | nontrivial. You get the impression it was added later, and the internal > > | structure of GHC is so complex that it makes it hard to write a > > | lightweight interface to it. > > > > It's certainly true that GHC's API was added later. But there is no real > > reason why it should not be easy to use. We'd be keen to support anyone > > who wanted to help make that happen. At the moment there's a bit of > > chicken and egg problem. > >
> In my case, all I was actually trying to do was implement GHCi. (It's a > good first test.) It took me a few hours, but I did in fact eventually > get it to work. My plan was to make a program that's essentially GHCi, > but accepts commands remotely via TCP. You looked at the source to GHCi itself I presume? It uses the GHC API, so it's a good place to start with building a variant of GHCi that uses the GHC API :-) Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
