catamorphism at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 02:00:39 EST 2008
On 2/20/08, Roman Leshchinskiy <rl at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Sorry, I should have been more precise. The language definition does not
> say anything about the pragmas and GHC ignores them by default. However,
> GHC has a flag which tells it to assign a meaning to certain pragmas.
> With this flag, those pragmas have to provide the correct information
> and that information if used by GHC. This is essentially how, say, the
> RULES pragma works now.
Well, okay, but I still find the pragma idea unconvincing because
there isn't an obvious way to specify what the information in the
pragmas means *without reference to GHC*. Your idea may well be the
most practical compromise possible.
> This part ought to be easier now. Just include a sufficient number of
> testcases in the testsuite and make sure that they are run by validate.
> This will force people to pay attention.
Sure, but that part isn't up to me. I suggested 4-5 years ago that the
testsuite should include ext-core test cases, and apparently no one
else thought that was a good idea.
Tim Chevalier * http://cs.pdx.edu/~tjc * Often in error, never in doubt
"...People who mind their own business die of boredom at
More information about the Cvs-ghc