When I removed Hugs support from other libraries I deleted all
__GLASGOW_HASKELL__ #ifdefs that didn't mention a specific version number.
This means removing support for other compilers as well, but I think
they're in the same boat as hugs.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Herbert,
Yes, you are right. It was my experience when compiling base with
haskell-names' hs-gen-iface that, unless __GLASGOW_HASKELL__ is defined,
many functions (including H2010) would simply not be defined, and some code
wouldn't even be well-formed Haskell.
First I tried to fix that on the sp
Hi,
On 2013-09-15 at 09:06:13 +0200, Austin Seipp wrote:
> I'm voting we delete it. In fact: I say if nobody pipes up and is
> *committed* to maintaining it, we delete it, oh, two weeks. That's
> standard library-proposal timeframe. (And I do mean maintenance - not
> "drop barely enough work to ge
Hugs ships it's own base; hugs98-plus-Sep2006 has libraries that
roughly match GHC 6.6 (base, QuickCheck, X11, HGL, OpenGL etc - those
were the days!)
Frankly I'd be extremely surprised if anyone using Hugs was using a
modern copy of base. If they are, either it's all perfect and nobody
is complai
I think we should delete the code.
It most likely doesn't work anymore due to bitrot (i.e. no one has tested
the other side of the #fidef in years) so it adds clutter without value. If
someone feels strongly about keeping it I think they should
* fix it and
* set up a buildbot so we know when w
Somebody claiming to be Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Does anyone actually still use/test those packages in HUGS?
I know lots of people still using HUGS.
(When) can that code be removed?
When enough features become standard that it becomes unnecessary ;)
--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
> I know lots of people still using HUGS.
The question was not whether people use HUGS, but whether HUGS uses this code.
This is not the same thing. According to HUGS homepage last release was 7 years
ago - does it rely on current versions of base et al. or does it ship with its
own?
Janek
Hello GHC devs,
...as the topic came up in #ghc, what's the current rationale for keeping
HUGS-specific code sprinkled throughout GHC boot libraries?
I quick tally in GHC's source tree via
find -type f -iname '*.*hs' | xargs grep '#if.*HUGS' | cut -f1-3 -d/ | uniq -c
results in
1 ./lib
