On Friday 20 September 2002 05:13 pm, Ross Paterson wrote: > > The only problem was Trex (hence Hugs.Trex). Your latest change does > make Trex cleaner; it might as well be done for the others too.
I prefer sticking w/ the simplest story about compatibility (hence just add oldlibs and be done with it). Also, I'd assumed that the story for TREX should be similar to the story for MDO, hence the pattern that I followed. You say, `hence Hugs.Trex', but from a casual glance at type.c, the generated code would refer to Trex, not Hugs.Trex, so I assume my latest change was necessary for TREX code to work without patching (maybe that's what you meant by saying it was cleaner?). --Jeff _______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
