H-core (was: Re: ~ patterns)

Philippa Cowderoy flippa at flippac.org
Wed Feb 1 09:51:08 EST 2006

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Robert Dockins wrote:

> > 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.

I'm not convinced on that. You'd have to specify a surprisingly low-level 
language to allow that to the extent the real optimisation nuts want, and 
that's something that really should be beyond the scope of the standard. 
Even if we stick with something simple it's extremely likely that we'd end 
up specifying a dictionary-passing implementation of typeclasses - 
something that seriously disadvantages some valuable extensions and 
implementation techniques (it'd really mess up JHC from what I can tell, 
for example).

flippa at flippac.org

A problem that's all in your head is still a problem.
Brain damage is but one form of mind damage.

More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list