I like the suggestion of a flag. For any realistic compilation you
have to pass a large number of flags to GHC anyway. `stack`, `cabal`
or so on can choose to pass the additional flag by default if they
wish or make it more ergonomic to do so.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM Jared Weakly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The main problem I see with this is now N tools need to implement support for
> that flag and it will need to be configured for every tool separately. If we
> standardize on a tool pragma in the compiler, all that stays automatic as it
> is now (a huge plus for tooling, which should as beginner friendly as
> possible). It also, in my eyes, helps enforce a cleaner distinction between
> pragmas as a feature-gate and pragmas as a compiler/tooling directive
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 11:13 AM Vladislav Zavialov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> What about introducing -fno-warn-pragma=XXX? People who use HLint will add
>> -fno-warn-pragma=HLINT to their build configuration.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 20:51 Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Recently Neil Mitchell opened a pull request [1] proposing a single-line
>>> change: Adding `{-# HLINT ... #-}` to the list of pragmas ignored by the
>>> lexer. I'm a bit skeptical of this idea. Afterall, adding cases to the
>>> lexer for every tool that wants a pragma seems quite unsustainable.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, a reasonable counter-argument could be made on the
>>> basis of the Haskell Report, which specifically says that
>>> implementations should ignore unrecognized pragmas. If GHC did this
>>> (instead of warning, as it now does) then this wouldn't be a problem.
>>>
>>> Of course, silently ignoring mis-typed pragmas sounds terrible from a
>>> usability perspective. For this reason I proposed that the following
>>> happen:
>>>
>>> * The `{-# ... #-}` syntax be reserved in particular for compilers (it
>>> largely already is; the Report defines it as "compiler pragma"
>>> syntax). The next Report should also allow implementations to warn in
>>> the case of unrecognized pragmas.
>>>
>>> * We introduce a "tool pragma" convention (perhaps even standardized in
>>> the next Report). For this we can follow the model of Liquid Haskell:
>>> `{-@ $TOOL_NAME ... @-}`.
>>>
>>> Does this sound sensible?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> - Ben
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/ghc/ghc/pull/204
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ghc-devs mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
