2008/10/14 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 06:06:03PM +0100, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
>>
>> (http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Annotations).
>
> When you say
> {-# ANN f id 1 #-}
> this means you are attaching (id 1) to f, right?
>
> I think that that syntax is very confusing. I'm not sure what I'd prefer
> though. Maybe parentheses, analogous to those in
> instance C (Maybe a)
That's a fair point: I also don't feel entirely happy with this aspect
of the syntax. On a syntax-related note, Tristan proposed that we use
this syntax instead for a slightly terser annotation:
{-@ f id 1 @-}
(The @ is meant to be evocative of the Java syntax for annotations).
This might be a nice addition if we envisage annotations becoming very
common. Furthermore, at the moment I don't think we can write:
--# INLINE foo
Is there any reason why not? It would be quite handy to be able to say:
--@ foo MyAnnotationConstructor
>> binary-package dependency issue I outline briefly above?
>
> I think GHC depending on packages like binary, utf8-string etc, rather
> than reinventing or copying wheels, would be a good thing.
Agreed. It's annoying that GHC cannot simply reuse ostensibly-reusable
packages like "binary" for it's own purposes because of this
versioning issue. I'm not sure we have a good way of dealing with this
(hard) problem at the moment, however.
All the best,
Max
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
