On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Christopher Done wrote:
> Thanks! It's strange to think there was once no GHCi. This is an interesting
> piece of Haskell implementation history! =)
It was really exciting when ghci showed up. No need to separately
load everything into hugs!
Thanks! It's strange to think there was once no GHCi. This is an
interesting piece of Haskell implementation history! =)
On 27 June 2016 at 15:27, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>
> On 27 June 2016 at 13:31, Christopher Done wrote:
>
>> On 27 June 2016 at 10:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> > On 26 June 2016
On 27 June 2016 at 13:31, Christopher Done wrote:
> On 27 June 2016 at 10:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
> >>
> >> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
> >> * Keep hold of
On 27 June 2016 at 10:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
>>
>> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>>
>> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
>> * Keep hold of the Core source
>> * Interpret the Core AST within Haskell
>
> In
On 27 June 2016 at 04:11, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> I don't understand what the bytecode format has to do here. Since
> your suggestion is to just store Core you can just compile to object
> code.
True, I could compile to either as long as I can link it dynamically.
> > Any input into this? How fa
On 26 June 2016 at 11:28, Christopher Done wrote:
> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>
> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
> * Keep hold of the Core source
> * Interpret the Core AST within Haskell
>
Interestingly, the first implementation of GHCi was a Core
I am not sure I entirely understand your proposal, but a good
way of finding out if it works is giving it a try.
Excerpts from Christopher Done's message of 2016-06-26 06:28:55 -0400:
> I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
>
> * Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
> *
I've been pondering how feasible it would be to:
* Compile in stages a module with the byte code linker
* Keep hold of the Core source
* Interpret the Core AST within Haskell
* When encountering built-in/primitives (or things from other libraries),
we compile that Core term and link it as an HValu