Hi Folks,
It has occurred to us that the GHC community really needs an
infrastructure (i.e. like a build system, but more) that people can use
for shipping their own libraries independently of GHC.
Several people have asked recently if they can ship their libraries with
GHC - for a while we were
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Folks, It has occurred to us that the GHC community really needs
> an infrastructure (i.e. like a build system, but more) that people
> can use for shipping their own libraries independently of GHC.
I'd like to throw the following into the pot:
The
Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Of course, much of the above is true if you replace 'Hugs' with 'NHC'
> but I'm not certain of the exact status of NHC at the moment so I'll
> let them speak for themselves.]
I concur wholeheartedly with everything Alastair says. Between the
three Has
> I'd like to throw the following into the pot:
>
> The Hugs and GHC developers work pretty hard to keep the two
> compilers compatible. For example, the next Hugs release will ship
> with libraries from the same source tree as GHC uses and the same
> foreign function interface as GHC and
G'day all.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:25:42PM +, Alastair Reid wrote:
> So as people try to come up with a distribution and build mechanism
> that will work for GHC, it would be good to think about how that
> same mechanism would work for Hugs too.
If you will allow me to AOL...
Me to
> Could you be more concrete? What extension of the package mechanism
> did you have in mind? (personally I had in mind a standard autoconf
> + Makefiles story for the build system, but I'm sure there are
> better ways).
I was thinking "add all the things that make packages insufficient
to use
> I was thinking "add all the things that make packages insufficient
> to use as an infrastructure" :-)
>
> One thing is autoconf support for those doing ffi.
> We might also want conditionals in package specs (cpp enough?).
>
> I don't see Makefiles as part of a cross-compiler story. Rather, I
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:56:13PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Absolutely. I didn't mean to sound so GHC-centric. It would be great
> if the same infrastructure supports multiple compilers/interpreters.
On the other hand, my impression is that if someone did something that
worked with GHC it wo
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:56:13PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Absolutely. I didn't mean to sound so GHC-centric. It would be
>> great if the same infrastructure supports multiple
>> compilers/interpreters.
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, my impression is that
Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3) By having a single file (the package description file) containing a
>single copy of all the information needed by any compiler, we might
>make it easier to maintain libraries such that they 'just work' on
>all compilers instead of requirin
10 matches
Mail list logo
