Hi, using cpphs is the right way to go!
Rewriting it from scratch may be a good exercise but is (essentially) a waste of time. However, always asking Malcolm to get source changes into cpphs would be annoying. Therefore it would be great if the sources were just part of the ghc sources (under git). Another "problem" might be the dependency "polyparse" that is currently not part of the core libraries. (I guess that replacing polyparse by something else would also be a nice exercise.) So (for me) the only question is, if Malcolm is willing to transfer control over cpphs to the haskell-community (or ghc head) - of course with due acknowledgements! Cheers Christian On 08.05.2015 08:07, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > On 8 May 2015, at 00:06, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > >> I think it's important that there be *one* >> "cpp" used by Haskell. fpp is under 4 kSLOC >> of C, and surely Haskell can do a lot better. > > FWIW, cpphs is about 1600 LoC today. > > Regards, > Malcolm > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
