Do we therefore have no interest in compilers other than GHC? Can we
drop all instances of ifdef __HUGS__ from the code?
I think doing so would require a reasonable amount of work, but would
significantly lower the barrier to contributing to Cabal.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Ian Lynagh
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.uk wrote:
Do we therefore have no interest in compilers other than GHC? Can we
drop all instances of ifdef __HUGS__ from the code?
I think doing so would require a reasonable amount of work, but would
significantly lower the
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:29:23PM +, Ben Millwood wrote:
Do we therefore have no interest in compilers other than GHC? Can we
drop all instances of ifdef __HUGS__ from the code?
It was intended to mean only that older versions of GHC aren't
supported, not other Haskell implementations. I'm
On 14 December 2012 23:33, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.uk
wrote:
Do we therefore have no interest in compilers other than GHC? Can we
drop all instances of ifdef __HUGS__ from the code?
I think doing so would
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@googlemail.com wrote:
We should distinguish the compilers that can build Cabal, from those
that cabal supports. Cabal supports several compilers that cannot
themselves build Cabal.
I am happy to drop the support for building Cabal
I recently submitted a pull request to Cabal to remove a block of code
that lived inside a CPP conditional, that I suspect had not been
compiled for years:
https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/1148
I think it would be beneficial if we came up with a policy that
allowed us to prune code like
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:51:12AM +, Ben Millwood wrote:
- what is the oldest version of GHC we intend to support?
- do we still support Hugs? what about other non-GHC implementations?
The HACKING file in the root directory says
Dependencies policy
---
