On 18/06/2011 11:20, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
As one of the few people who has habitually used Haskell'98 wherever
possible, I favour plan A. As I recently discovered, in ghc 7 it is
already very fragile to attempt to depend on both the base and
haskell98 packages simultaneously. In most cases
On 17/06/2011 16:42, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:11, Jacques Carettecare...@mcmaster.ca wrote:
they chose to stick to pure Haskell 98. Plan B is actually more fragile in
that respect, in that if they forget to be really really explicit about
their code being pure Haskell
From: Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com
On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
So: ? ?Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable,
? ? ? and will require source code changes to fix them. ?I do not have
? ? ? ?any idea how many Hackage
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:54:30AM +0100, John Lato wrote:
From: Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com
On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
So: ? ?Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable,
? ? ? and will require source code changes
On 20 June 2011 11:54, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it easy to check, out of those 344, how many would build if the
dependency on haskell98 were removed?
You could write a script that will download them all, remove the
haskell98 dep. and cabal build the package.
(Bas, your link
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
(Plan A) Add a module 'Prelude' to package 'haskell98'.
Now you can compile a pure H98 program thus:
ghc -c Main.hs -hide-all-packages -package haskell98
(Cabal puts the -hide-all-packages in for you.) And this will
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:43:37PM +0100, Paterson, Ross wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
(Plan A) Add a module 'Prelude' to package 'haskell98'.
Now you can compile a pure H98 program thus:
ghc -c Main.hs -hide-all-packages -package haskell98
As one of the few people who has habitually used Haskell'98 wherever possible,
I favour plan A. As I recently discovered, in ghc 7 it is already very fragile
to attempt to depend on both the base and haskell98 packages simultaneously.
In most cases it simply doesn't work. Removing those few
Simon Peyton-Jones, if you say:
Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable,
and will require source code changes to fix them. I do not have
any idea how many Hackage packages would fail in this way.
If you don't have any idea how many Hackage packages would
On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
So: Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable,
and will require source code changes to fix them. I do not have
any idea how many Hackage packages would fail in this way.
Of the 372
Friends, this is to ask your opinion about a possible change in GHC 7.2. The
current implementation in GHC 7.2 is Plan A below. Plan A is a bit easier for
us, but I think it may be a bit draconian, and therefore propose Plan B as an
alternative. Opinions?
Simon
On 17/06/2011 10:47 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
But Plan A is simpler. And by breaking packages it will encourage [force]
libraries that use a mixture of H98 and more modern modules to move towards the
more modern story.
I favour Plan A.
Reasoning:
For many years of my previous
On Friday 17 June 2011, 17:11:39, Jacques Carette wrote:
I favour Plan A.
+1
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:11, Jacques Carette care...@mcmaster.ca wrote:
they chose to stick to pure Haskell 98. Plan B is actually more fragile in
that respect, in that if they forget to be really really explicit about
their code being pure Haskell 98, the resulting compilation errors do not
On 6/17/11, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Friday 17 June 2011, 17:11:39, Jacques Carette wrote:
I favour Plan A.
+1
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
15 matches
Mail list logo
