Benedikt wrote:
> So, let's take that LLVM thing to a somewhat more serious level (which
> means no more arguing with toy projects that simply ignore the
> difficult stuff).

You can learn a lot from prototypes.

> 3. A better LLVM. If we do it right, other's implementing functional
> languages using LLVM will not be faced with the same problems again.
> Dunno if that's possible.

What exactly are you thinking of that goes beyond what the other functional
languages that already target LLVM have already had to implement?

Cheers,
Jon.