On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> I would agree. For me, if GHC would in the future need Objective
> Caml to build, this would make GHC useless for most of my projects.
> You see, AFAIK, there are no free (in the GNU sense) implementations
> of the language. And since GHC would then need non-free tools to
> build, all my GHC-using projects would therefore need non-free tools
> to build. Since I am a free software advocate, I can't easily allow
> such dependencies in my projects.
>
> I certainly hope the GHC people won't introduce such dependencies.
>
> Hoping that Haskell stays free [snip]
Aren't you pre-emptively assuming several key things:
1. It hasn't been stated whether this C-- compiler is to be purely a
research vehicle or whether it will be developed to production compiler
state.
2. It hasn't been stated that the C-- will be the only target for future
GHC compilation. (As I understand it's current status is as a fruitful
research direction.)
3. It's not been stated that this will be the only C-- compiler developed.
4. It's not been stated that all the other haskell compilers (hbc, nhc,
etc) are going to be completely & irrevocably replaced by GHC.
It would seem appropriate to get at least 1 & 2 confirmed before getting
into a discussion of the licence/usage implications. I respect {free
software,open source} {programmers,advocates} but please let's try and
keep this list a place where people are allowed to propose/discuss things
for `pure research value' without being pressurised to _immediately_ make
them conform to {free software,open source} ideology.
(My sincerest apologies if I've read more into the post than was
intended, or abused the list.)
___cheers,_dave_______________________________________________________
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Expressions that look like line noise.
www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/pi.htm Control constructs that will make you
work tel: (0117) 954-5253 gasp, laugh, and possibly hurl." -- ?
