On 13 August 2005 08:21, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> Has runghc been fixed to not require scripts to have a ".hs" suffix?
> It looks to me like it hasn't, in the recent 6.4.1 snapshot, but I may
> be overlooking some option.
Right, this won't be in 6.4.1 I'm afraid. It required some larger
changes t
Excellent, thanks.
Once you've committed this, it seems like there should be potential
for haskell scripts to be used in some of the same situations as e.g.
perl scripts.
Is 'runhaskell' supposed to be a standard handle to a working haskell
interpreter, e.g. possibly runhugs or runnhc? Should peo
I'm working on this. It's not trivial because GHC assumes all over the
place that the suffix on a file determines how it should be compiled,
but I've now implemented something similar to gcc's -x flag.
Cheers,
Simon
On 14 May 2005 20:04, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> (moving to a separate thr
