H-core (was: Re: ~ patterns)
robdockins at fastmail.fm
Wed Feb 1 09:40:20 EST 2006
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:12 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Taral <taralx at gmail.com> writes:
>> On 1/31/06, Simon Marlow <simonmar at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> I've been swayed by the arguments put forward by the ~-
>>> proponents, so
>>> I'm not going to champion the removal of ~ any more.
>>> We must find *something* to throw away though! :-)
>> I still like the idea of splitting Haskell' into Haskell'-core and
>> Haskell'-lazy, and moving ~ and ! patterns into Haskell'-lazy.
> The Haskell'98 Report already uses an informal notion of a "core"
> language, into which other syntactic constructs are translated.
> I think in Haskell-prime we ought to define this core precisely
> and formally.
I'd like to second this.
> One can even imagine someone developing a pure H-core compiler, with
> the fuller language implemented as a pre-processor over the top!
> (I know at least one person who would prefer to write programs in
> core rather than Haskell'98...)
In light of the recent post on optimizing core, it seems like this
might be a very good way to allow people to optimize their inner
loops without having to trick their favorite compiler to do the
optimizations they want.
Additionally, a standard for core would allow a new level of tool
interoperability. Haskell front ends and backends could be cleanly
separated along a well-defined border. DrIFT and Haddock and others
as well could benefit. Happy could generate core directly.... anyway
you get the idea.
Speak softly and drive a Sherman tank.
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.
More information about the Haskell-prime