On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:53:26PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I _really_ appreciate the work you are putting in to making jhc faster. what I meant to say is that I know parts of jhc are _already_ obfuscated, but that as far as haskell compilers go, it's not as bad as it could be. :)
Oh, I should also say that I mean no disrespect to the GHC developers, the only reason I can use simple strictness annotations instead of explicit unboxed types is their sweet strictness analyzer, the only reason I can use more readable 'do' syntax rather than `thenM` style monadic code is their sweet implementation of classes. GHC is great code and the papers that came out of its implementation were the inspiration for most parts of jhc. :) John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈