On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:56:13PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
Absolutely. I didn't mean to sound so GHC-centric. It would be
great if the same infrastructure supports multiple
compilers/interpreters.
Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, my impression is that if
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:56:13PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
Absolutely. I didn't mean to sound so GHC-centric. It would be great
if the same infrastructure supports multiple compilers/interpreters.
On the other hand, my impression is that if someone did something that
worked with GHC it
I was thinking add all the things that make packages insufficient
to use as an infrastructure :-)
One thing is autoconf support for those doing ffi.
We might also want conditionals in package specs (cpp enough?).
I don't see Makefiles as part of a cross-compiler story. Rather, I
see an
G'day all.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:25:42PM +, Alastair Reid wrote:
So as people try to come up with a distribution and build mechanism
that will work for GHC, it would be good to think about how that
same mechanism would work for Hugs too.
If you will allow me to AOL...
Me too!
Could you be more concrete? What extension of the package mechanism
did you have in mind? (personally I had in mind a standard autoconf
+ Makefiles story for the build system, but I'm sure there are
better ways).
I was thinking add all the things that make packages insufficient
to use as
