Henrik Nilsson wrote:
But different people may have different opinions [...]
... and this is concisely stated in Wadler's Law of Language Design.
(http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~mh/curry/listarchive/0017.html :-)
Seriously, I don't really care on what we agree here, it's only a minor
issue. My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moreover, there is only one first
line, and assuming some kind of language pragma is introduced, and assuming
Simon Marlow goes ahead and introduces GHC_OPTIONS, and the other
implementors goes ahead and introduces HUGS_OPTIONS,
OPTIONS pragmas are only looked for at the top of your source files,
upto the first (non-literate,non-empty) line not containing
OPTIONS.
Why doesn't non-empty include comment-only lines?
One concrete reason for this is that the code which looks for '{-#
OPTIONS' isn't the full
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:27:19 +0100
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could make it understand comments, but that adds extra
complication (nested comments, maximal munch for '--' comments, etc.).
Hmm.
Nested comments yes, I see how that'd be a problem.
But surely it wouldn't be hard
A very small nitpick:
OPTIONS pragmas are only looked for at the top of your source files,
upto the first (non-literate,non-empty) line not containing OPTIONS.
Why doesn't non-empty include comment-only lines?
I usually start source files with the equivalent of:
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
OPTIONS pragmas are only looked for at the top of your source files,
upto the first (non-literate,non-empty) line not containing OPTIONS.
Why doesn't non-empty include comment-only lines?
I usually start source files with the equivalent of:
[...]
and currently {-#
Sven Panne wrote:
... and I think it is fine that way, I would even be happy if it had
to be the very first line. OPTIONS can change the language (well, at
least in parts), so they should be placed in a prominent place. It
would be easy to change GHC's behaviour the way you asked for, but
