[Haskell] reasons for non-portability
Keith.Wansbrough at cl.cam.ac.uk
Mon Mar 22 11:46:40 EST 2004
> Am Sonntag, 21. März 2004 12:36 schrieben Sie:
> > Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > > [...] My question is, if a module is considered non-portable only if it
> > > contains non-portable constructs itself, or if a module is also
> > > non-portable if it just imports a module which is non-portable.
> > Both, otherwise stating the property "portable" wouldn't help very much.
> Well, I discovered that ghci is able to load modules without the
> -fglasgow-exts option even if they rely on non-portable modules from the
> hierarchical libraries (like, e.g., Control.Monad.Reader).
Ultimately, *every* module depends on non-portable modules - somewhere
it all has to come down to primitives, and these are wired into each
compiler in some magic way.
More information about the Haskell