What pragma syntax should other Haskell compilers use? I don't think it's
fair for GHC to have exclusive rights to the pragma syntax form the report,
and other compilers should not be relegated to using {-# X-FOOHC ... #-}.
But now we have all the same issues again.Cheers Simon On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:32, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > Niklas Larsson <metanik...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi! > > > > Why not follow the standard in that pragmas were intended for all > > tools consuming Haskell ... > > That much isn't clear to me. The Report defines the syntax very > specifically to be for "compiler pragmas" to be used by "compiler > implementations". I personally consider "the compiler" to be something > different from tools like HLint. > > Of course, on the other hand it also specified that implementations > should ignore unknown pragmas, so the original authors clearly didn't > anticipate that non-compiler tooling would be so common. > > > ... and not for GHCs exclusive use? > > All that would require is to make the warning opt-in. > > > Disabling the unknown pragma warning by default would mean that users > not be warned if they mis-spelled LANGAGE or INILNE, which could result > in frustrating error messages for the uninitiated. It seems to me that > we should try to avoid this given just how common these pragmas are in > practice. > > Finally, in general I think it would be generally useful to have a > properly namespaced syntax for tooling pragmas. Afterall, we otherwise > end up with tools claiming random bits of syntax, resulting in an > unnecessarily steep learning curve and potentially > syntactically-colliding tools. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
