Re: 6.10.3 plans
On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.
Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that hit
for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
time getting on top of this change. ymmv.
As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make
it clear that this is a change in 6.10.2?
finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell.
This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and later.
To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use
Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
Simon Marlow wrote: On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote: ... As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make it clear that this is a change in 6.10.2? finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell. This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and later. To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr. That's definitely helpful; I'm all for it. Hope there's time available to put it in. cheers --sigbjorn ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
Hi,
Perhaps it would make sense to add something along those lines to the
documentation for Foreign.newForeignPtr as well?
-Iavor
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.
Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that hit
for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
time getting on top of this change. ymmv.
As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make it
clear that this is a change in 6.10.2?
finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell.
This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and later.
To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use
Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.
Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that hit
for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
time getting on top of this change. ymmv.
--sigbjorn
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.
Thanks
Ian
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
Ian Lynagh:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.
I agree.
Manuel
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
2009/4/23 Duncan Coutts duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 05:59 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Hi Ian,
thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do
another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
Small change, but could be helpful to package usersauthors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1
I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
release.
I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
pragmatic solution to deliver extra help to folks without spending the
dev. time to implement a more appropriate pragma like WARNING/INFO. If
such a thing already existed...
For INFO we'd want a mechanism to have it tell us the first time but
once we acknowledge the info, for it not to keep bugging us or our users
every time. Hmm, tricky.
We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
RE: 6.10.3 plans
From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Dunlap An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else. Would this be a good time to add the time package too, or has that issue been resolved? I think Ian said time will be rebundled (see excerpt above). Alistair * Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. * ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Hi Ian,
thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
Small change, but could be helpful to package usersauthors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1
I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
release.
I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
Duncan
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Hi Ian,
thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
Small change, but could be helpful to package usersauthors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1
I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
release.
I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
pragmatic solution to deliver
extra help to folks without spending the dev. time to implement a more
appropriate pragma
like WARNING/INFO. If such a thing already existed...
--sigbjorn
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 05:59 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Hi Ian,
thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do
another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
Small change, but could be helpful to package usersauthors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1
I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
release.
I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
pragmatic solution to deliver extra help to folks without spending the
dev. time to implement a more appropriate pragma like WARNING/INFO. If
such a thing already existed...
For INFO we'd want a mechanism to have it tell us the first time but
once we acknowledge the info, for it not to keep bugging us or our users
every time. Hmm, tricky.
Duncan
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
6.10.3 plans
Hi all, Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to do a 6.10.3 release. The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process, including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing, release-note writing, etc that is necessary. An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else. There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in 6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is: * Add haskeline and deps as boot packages * Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them. Any comments? Thanks Ian ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
Hi Ian,
thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
Small change, but could be helpful to package usersauthors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1
thanks
--sigbjorn
On 4/22/2009 16:56, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to
do a 6.10.3 release.
The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process,
including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we
will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the
changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing,
release-note writing, etc that is necessary.
An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in
the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.
There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in
the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on
some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline
and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other
issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in
6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think
that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is:
* Add haskeline and deps as boot packages
* Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin
package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new
boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them.
Any comments?
Thanks
Ian
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: Hi all, Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to do a 6.10.3 release. The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process, including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing, release-note writing, etc that is necessary. An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else. There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in 6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is: * Add haskeline and deps as boot packages * Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them. Any comments? Thanks Ian Would this be a good time to add the time package too, or has that issue been resolved? Alex ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: 6.10.3 plans
On Apr 22, 2009, at 22:00 , Alexander Dunlap wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else. Would this be a good time to add the time package too, or has that issue been resolved? ... -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
