On 20 January 2011 02:47, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote:
Allowing this was a specific feature that was included in ghc on
purpose (as well as the relaxed if/then layout rule in do statements)
So this is definitely a regression.
Ian split this out in this patch:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:14:29AM +, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 20 January 2011 02:47, John Meacham j...@repetae.net wrote:
Allowing this was a specific feature that was included in ghc on
purpose (as well as the relaxed if/then layout rule in do statements)
So this is definitely a
Hello,
Yes, it's still on in GHC by default, but Cabal specifies Haskell98 if a
language isn't given in the .cabal file.
network probably wants to give NondecreasingIndentation as an extension
if impl(ghc = 7.1).
I'm not asking how to fix packages. Actually the layout of the network
Am Donnerstag, den 20.01.2011, 23:25 +0900 schrieb 山本和彦:
I'm asking why GHC breaks backward compatibility (e.g.
FlexibleInstances and BangPatterns) and why maintainers of packages
should do boring fixes. What are benefits of such overhead?
Hi,
what are the changes in GHC wrt.
As promised, here are our plans for forthcoming GHC releases and the git
switchover:
- do a 7.0.2 RC as soon as possible, followed shortly by a release.
Currently blocking this is a problem with Cabal that shows up on
OS X 10.6, we hope to have this resolved soon.
- switch the GHC repo
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
...
- make a new stable branch for 7.2, and release 7.2.1 shortly after.
So we'll be doing a 7.2.1 release much earlier than planned. Our motivation
for doing this is:
- the 7.0 branch is darcs, but the
Simon Marlow wrote:
Hopefully that explains why sometimes we make breaking changes. If
the
breaking change has a high enough impact, then it becomes worthwhile
to
add backwards compatibility (via warnings / deprecation or whatever).
Of course from the point of view of the user, the
On 20 January 2011 16:57, austin seipp a...@hacks.yi.org wrote:
It would be nice to have this in GHC 7.2, but I was thinking of
eventually extending the scope of compiler plugins to allow users to
write Cmm optimisations as well.
This would be particularly cool because Cmm optimisations in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/20/11 12:09 , Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
judgement as to whether we should spend effort on backwards
compatibility or not. Perhaps we're getting it wrong - so feedback
from
users is always valuable.
From the point of
Hi Simon,
On Jan 20, 2011, at 17:54, Simon Marlow wrote:
The layout fix is this change:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/changeset/9a82b1ffa35fa4c3927c66a1037a37d436cf6aac
Another case where GHC was not strictly standards-compliant, and it
was fixed by adding a flag for the extension.
On 01/20/11 11:57, austin seipp wrote:
The GHC git repo that
we'll be using is here:
http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc.git
This is an incredibly minor note in my opinion (that was brought up
before IIRC) but, isn't it a little strange for ghc's git repository
to exist on darcs.haskell.org? Not
Point taken, I personally think it's rather minor although it was
brought up before like I said, so perhaps others think differently.
Either way, I, for one, welcome our new version control overlord.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Isaac Dupree
m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
On
This is Haskell. One should abstract away the system used. Call it
vcs-ghc@ and vcs.haskell.org ;-)
Gruss,
Christian
* austin seipp a...@hacks.yi.org [20.01.2011 22:19]:
Point taken, I personally think it's rather minor although it was
brought up before like I said, so perhaps others think
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:09:58PM -, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
From the point of view of darcs, which is usually trying to support 2 or 3
GHC versions at a time, one cycle of deprecation makes life a lot simpler.
We do look at warnings and try to fix them, but it's nicer not to have
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
In the case of the layout bug, I think it might be worth considering
going the other way: adjusting the standard with what ghc has always
done.
Anyone can propose language changes - the process is described here:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/20/11 21:12 , Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
I therefore think that keeping the number of extensions
to a minimum should be a high priority. It seems that the ghc team is
going overboard with
On 21.01.2011, at 03:12, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Axel Simon wrote:
In the case of the layout bug, I think it might be worth
considering
going the other way: adjusting the standard with what ghc has always
done.
Anyone can propose language changes -
17 matches
Mail list logo
