>> Also, why do you want phase aliases?
>
> I don't quite see how to achieve this without aliases. This
> will be even more of a problem once I add additional fusion layers.
I've added phase equality to the implementation. It seems like a nice
clean extension.
Since this lets you add constraints
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Ah -- Roman you mean you want to add a phase-ordering constraint at some time
*other* than when you declare one or other of the phases. Are you sure this is
important?
Fairly. I've explained why in a follow-up to Max's message.
Also, why do you want phase aliases
> Ah -- Roman you mean you want to add a phase-ordering constraint at some time
> *other* than when you declare one or other of the phases. Are you sure this
> is important? It's an awkward addition because, like orphan instances, it
> means there's an interface file with perhaps-vital info wh
| giving up. Admittedly I only have a superstition that this will be a
| practical problem.
I agree with Roman -- let's not bother with lenience until we need it
| > Secondly, I think it is quite
| > important to be able to specify dependencies for already declared phases.
| > That is, I (probabl
