But the build process doesn't have to use your new back end to haddock. I suppose we could build haddock without SYB for the GHC build process, and regard a more fully-featured version of haddock with more back ends as a separate application.
I don't have a strong feeling about this. Building SYB as part of building haddock would not be so bad S | -----Original Message----- | From: Ranjit Jhala [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ranjit Jhala | Sent: 13 June 2011 17:10 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: cvs-ghc | Subject: Re: [GHC] #5247: include generics library | | | Here's David's explanation: | | "About the dependency, I don't think we can depend on syb as it's not a | GHC boot library. (Haddock is used in the GHC build process and can | only depend on boot libraries). syb was moved out of the boot | libraries a while ago, unfortunately." | | Perhaps he can weigh in? | | On Jun 13, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | | > | According to David Waern, haddock can only use the stuff thats | > | in the ghc boot libraries, and hence cannot have dependencies | > | on SYB (or other generics libraries.) | > | > Why? | > | > Simon | _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
