Based on my experiences with HaRe, I have started putting together a wish list of features I would like to see in it, which is here https://github.com/fpco/haskell-ide/wiki/GHC-API Just to say: I really support having this discussion. The GHC API is not driven enough by the needs of its clients. I think that a client can actually access pretty much any function inside GHC, so no wonder the API feels unstable! Steps forward might be: · Be very clear which functions are part of the official API. I think it’s the ones exported by GHC.lhs · Review them to check they all make sense · Add good Haddock documentation for each of them · Make sure that each is marked, at its definition site, as part of the GHC API. At the moment it is far from clear when one is modifying a function that is part of the GHC API, since most of these functions aren’t in GHC.lhs I’m happy to help, but not as a driving force. Thanks! Simon From: Haskell-Cafe [mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Alan & Kim Zimmerman Sent: 18 August 2014 09:06 To: haskell Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Wish list for GHC API tooling support At the moment the GHC API is a sort of poor relation in the haskell world, where it could be a significantly useful resource for the growing list of haskell tool providers. Based on my experiences with HaRe, I have started putting together a wish list of features I would like to see in it, which is here https://github.com/fpco/haskell-ide/wiki/GHC-API I welcome feedback / discussion on this. Regards Alan