<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roma@ro-che.info" target="_blank">roma@ro-che.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* John Lato <<a href="mailto:jwlato@gmail.com">jwlato@gmail.com</a>> [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800]<br>
<div><div class="h5">> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="mailto:roma@ro-che.info">roma@ro-che.info</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.<br>
> > Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know.<br>
> > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways.<br>
> ><br>
> > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Maybe that's a good thing? The current situation doesn't really seem to be<br>
> working. Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs (as<br>
> evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other compilers<br>
> don't use anyway. Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc and<br>
> try again, perhaps after some code cleanup? Having base in ghc may provide<br>
> more motivation to separate it properly.<br>
<br>
</div></div>After base is in GHC, separating it again will be only harder, not<br>
easier. Or do you have a specific plan in mind?</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It's more about motivation. It seems to me right now base is in a halfway state. People think that moving it further away from ghc is The Right Thing To Do, but nobody is feeling enough pain to be sufficiently motivated to do it. If we apply pain, then someone will be motivated to do it properly. And if nobody steps up, maybe having a platform-agnostic base isn't really very important.<br>
</div></div></div></div>