On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 06:53:07PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > To put it crudely, I don't see why the Hugs and nhc98 developers > should be forced to run a ghc validate, when the ghc developers never > run their changes through Hugs or nhc98 to check for breakage there. > > Now there isn't really as big a divide as it sounds when I put it that > way. Fixing library breakage due to GHC changes is only a mild > irritation, and I know it is ultimately in a good cause. I'm not > complaining about the current situation at all.
I think I'm way off the original point here, but I think that the reason we currently get so much breakage is that parts of the core libraries, particularly in base, are not truly shared, but a common pot in which impl-specific code is kept. In some cases this is due to use of extensions (ReadP is one that comes to mind), but mostly it's just that things evolved from different directions. I'm hoping that once GHC's view of base is saner (and in particular, most modules are not in a recursive import loop) we can look at making ghc, nhc, hugs, etc, have a more consistent view, with imports and code mostly shared. Then it should be a lot less likely that a change will cause impl-specific breakage. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
