On 11/30/09, Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote:
Hi All,
I was wondering if there are any formal semantics defined for GHC's core
language? I'm working with some core to core rewriting passes for which I'd
like to verify the soundness, but that would require some formal definition
catamorphism:
On 11/30/09, Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote:
Hi All,
I was wondering if there are any formal semantics defined for GHC's core
language? I'm working with some core to core rewriting passes for which I'd
like to verify the soundness, but that would require some
Hi Simon,
The paper on System FC [1] has an operational semantics. Would that do?
It seems like a start. It doesn't matter much, since I don't have any time
left to actually work on this, but I wanted to verify my claim in my report
that no directly usable semantics are available :-)
Gr.
The paper on System FC [1] has an operational semantics. Would that do?
Simon
[1] http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/ext-f
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Matthijs
I don't know of any separate description of the semantics of Core, but it's just the
lambda calculus with let, letrec and case. There's plenty of code that works over
Core in GHC itself, but no separate libraries. There is a library to parse the stuff
that ghc -fext-core spits out, though.
tis 2003-02-18 klockan 09.49 skrev Simon Peyton-Jones:
I don't know of any separate description of the semantics of Core, but it's just the
lambda calculus with let, letrec and case. There's plenty of code that works over
Core in GHC itself, but no separate libraries. There is a library to
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:01:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm also looking for actual code for working with Core. :) The
Language.Haskell.* stuff gives me a very high-level representation of
Haskell source, and I'd rather work with something simple, like Core. I
*suppose* I could use
