Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option,
> > > and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be
> > > broken with the new cpphs?
Hmm. There could be a better solution. Since no released version of
cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only
the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the
flags. In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used
to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the
eol-stripping flag.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
