I think Brandon may have misread your example as "{-# HLINT ... #-}".
One problem with "{- HLINT" (although I'm personally not in favor of the special-casing) is that if it's just a Haskell comment then it itself is vulnerable to typos. E.g. if I type "{- HILNT foo -}" (L and I swapped), hlint the tool will miss it. Tom > El 16 oct 2018, a las 18:44, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs > <ghc-devs@haskell.org> escribió: > > I’m still not getting it. GHC ignores everything between {- and -}. Why > would I need to produce a new GHC if someone wants to us {- WIMWAM blah -}? > > Simon > > From: Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> > Sent: 16 October 2018 23:39 > To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com>; Neil Mitchell <ndmitch...@gmail.com>; > ghc-devs@haskell.org Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> > Subject: Re: Treatment of unknown pragmas > > One problem is you have to release a new ghc every time someone comes up with > a new pragma-using tool that starts to catch on. Another is that the more of > these you have, the more likely a typo will inadvertently match some tool you > don't even know about but ghc does. > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs > <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: > I’m still not understanding what’s wrong with > > {- HLINT blah blah -} > > GHC will ignore it. HLint can look at it. Simple. > > I must be missing something obvious. > > Simon > > From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Simon Marlow > Sent: 16 October 2018 21:44 > To: Neil Mitchell <ndmitch...@gmail.com> > Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> > Subject: Re: Treatment of unknown pragmas > > I suggested to Neil that he add the {-# HLINT #-} pragma to GHC. It seemed > like the least worst option taking into account the various issues that have > already been described in this thread. I'm OK with adding HLINT; after all we > already ignore OPTIONS_HADDOCK, OPTIONS_NHC98, a bunch of other OPTIONS, > CFILES (a Hugs relic), and several more that GHC ignores. > > We can either > (a) not protect people from mistyped pragmas, or > (b) protect people from mistyped pragma names, but then we have to bake in > the set of known pragmas > > We could choose to have a different convention for pragmas that GHC doesn't > know about (as Ben suggests), but then of course we don't get any protection > for mistyped pragma names when using that convention. > > Cheers > Simon > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:12, Neil Mitchell <ndmitch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A warning flag is an interesting way to deal with the issue. On the > > other hand, it's not great from an ergonomic perspective; afterall, this > > would mean that all users of HLint (and any other tool requiring special > > Yep, this means every HLint user has to do an extra thing. I (the > HLint author) now have a whole pile of "how do I disable warnings in > Stack", and "what's the equivalent of this in Nix". Personally, it ups > the support level significantly that I wouldn't go this route. > > I think it might be a useful feature in general, as new tools could > use the flag to prototype new types of warning, but I imagine once a > feature gets popular it becomes too much fuss. > > > > I think it makes a lot of sense to have a standard way for third-parties > > > to attach string-y information to Haskell source constructs. While it's > > > not strictly speaking necessary to standardize the syntax, doing > > > so minimizes the chance that tools overlap and hopefully reduces > > > the language ecosystem learning curve. > > > > This sounds exactly like the existing ANN pragma, which is what I've wanted > > LiquidHaskell to move towards for a long time. What is wrong with using the > > ANN pragma? > > Significant compilation performance penalty and extra recompilation. > ANN pragmas is what HLint currently uses. > > > I'm a bit skeptical of this idea. Afterall, adding cases to the > > lexer for every tool that wants a pragma seems quite unsustainable. > > I don't find this argument that convincing. Given the list already > includes CATCH and DERIVE, the bar can't have been _that_ high to > entry. And yet, the list remains pretty short. My guess is the demand > is pretty low - we're just whitelisting a handful of additional words > that aren't misspellings. > > Thanks, Neil > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh > allber...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs