[Timber] Welcome to the timber list

[Andy Gill]

>
> I'm also in favor of shifting to some more "traditional", or at  
> least more memory-efficient representation of strings.  But the  
> main question as I see it is what kind of programming pattern an  
> array-based representation would support.  We can't simply reuse  
> list recursion, and we don' want to force all string computations  
> up to the imperative level.
>
> Would it be possible to play with overloading here?  Or to  
> generalize the list comprehensions?

> I don't care too much whether we depart from Haskell or not, since  
> Haskell's string handling probably isn't its strongest point.  But  
> I don't know of any better alternative that is both convenient and  
> purely functional.
>
> Regarding type classes we should not feel any constraints at all.   
> Simplification sounds like a good thing!

Thanks for the heads up. I hate the numeric overloading classes; it  
was by far the darkest corner of the snowball compiler.

I've got the compiler compiling again; a number of undefined were  
used, but you can see the patches.

I propose.
  - moving the *hs files into $ROOT/src
  - creating a simple test directory
  - Starting testing the parser, and working my way down the compiler  
pipeline,
    towards small examples working.

AndyG