On 17/06/2011 16:42, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:11, Jacques Carette 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 c
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 it
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
> >
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 20 June 2011 11:54, John Lato 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 doesn't work for me
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:54:30AM +0100, John Lato wrote:
> >
> > From: Bas van Dijk
> >
> > On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones 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
>
>
> From: Bas van Dijk
>
> On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones 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.
>
On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones 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 direct reverse dependenc
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 woul
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 r
On 6/17/11, Daniel Fischer 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
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-has
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:11, Jacques Carette 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
> make it obviou
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 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 professiona
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
=
15 matches
Mail list logo
