| I thought the point of these extension flags was to be cross-compiler?
| So it seems a bit odd to make a change for the benefit of one compiler.
|
| Here's my interpretation: Rank2Types is not a synonym for RankNTypes.
| It's a specific requirement the source file has. When GHC comes to
|
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
Do you mean “silently and forever”?
I think that's what I mean, yes.
As Johan notes, many of us run our continuous builds of our packages with
-Wall -Werror in order to keep them as clean as possible. Introducing
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
But if the will of the masses is to silently and forever make
Rank2Types=RankNtypes (documented of course), that's ok with me. It just
seems odd. I thought that's what deprecation was *for*.
An alternative
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Ashley Yakeley ash...@semantic.org wrote:
I think it's OK if a compiler accepts a program incorrectly marked
Rank2Types when it actually requires rank-n types?
It's an interesting question: does Rank2Types mean I require at least
rank-2 types or I only use
