I mean, it would be nice if ghc --make was reimplemented using Shake, but there are a few problems (most notably the use of .shake metadata store) which make it hard to be bug-for-bug compatible with the old make.
Edward Excerpts from Ben Gamari's message of 2016-01-23 10:45:50 -0800: > Tuncer Ayaz <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 23 January 2016 at 18:16, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > > > >> On 2016-01-23 at 17:58:12 +0100, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > My suggestion, and what I'd expect, is to make Shake part of GHC's > >> > included lib, just like process or xhtml. > >> > >> please don't; the only reason we include process and xhtml because > >> we *have* to. The less we *have* to bundle, the better. > > > > If there's a good way in 8.x (with new Cabal and Shake) to avoid > > bundling, while using Shake for ghc --make, then I'm all for it. My > > concern is that it has to be as simple as it's currently to install > > ghc on a random Linux distro, in order for someone to use a Shakefile. > > I want more Shakefile users :). > > I'm not sure I follow. Edward's --make support is a front-end plugin; > as far as I know there has been no discussion of shipping it with > GHC-proper. It merely makes use of the new front-end plugin facility. > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here? > > Cheers, > > - Ben _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
