omega.theta: > 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.
GHC needs to just keep copies in-tree. Make sure it doesn't expose them or register them, and then it can do what it likes. _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
