On 22/08/12 16:22, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
mailto:p...@st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote:
So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I
didn't want to put in, but the things I
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:45:51AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
>
> Absolutely true, but I came across this in the GHC-source itself. I would
> like the GHC-source to be literateable (not a work, but you know what I mean)
> in markdown.
FWIW, I'm not sure the work necessary to maintain corr
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Nicolas Frisby
wrote:
> Maybe just try again in a separate thread? Perhaps under a pseudonym! :)
Whoa, just realized once again that email is tone-deaf. I meant that
'pseudonym' thing cheekily: just to help differentiate the proposal in
a silly way. In no way was
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> Anyway, the point is a bit moot. It seems obvious that the proposal had
> very little support and has been withdrawn.
>
This might be a poor time for it with 7.6.1 around the corner.
That said, I would re-propose *with code* (i.e. a p
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> Even so. A concrete version of what I'm getting at is that ghc is
> self-bootstrapping, so older versions need to be able to build newer ones;
> GHC code using a new markdown literate preprocessor --- or, worse, one
> integrated with lexing o
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies > wrote:
>
>> So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want
>> to put in, but the things I very much d
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
mailto:p...@st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote:
So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want to put
in, but the things I very much do want to include get lost in translation al
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want
> to put in, but the things I very much do want to include get lost in
> translation also. I wanted to allow the GHC source itself to be written in
> markdown.
If
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> Unfortunately, it seems the proposal is so poorly written that I've spent
> more time dealing with the misconceptions it creates than actually
> implementing the unlitter. I'll retract the proposal.
Maybe just try again in a separate th
On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:47, Edward Kmett wrote:
Ultimately your best bet to actually get something integrated will be to find
something that minimizes the amount of work on the part of GHC HQ.
Check.
I don't think anybody there is interested in picking up a lot of fiddly
formatting logic and c
Ultimately your best bet to actually get something integrated will be to
find something that minimizes the amount of work on the part of GHC HQ.
I don't think *anybody* there is interested in picking up a lot of fiddly
formatting logic and carving it into stone.
They might be slightly less inclin
On 14 Aug 2012, at 07:48, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Personally, still do not see the big benefit for all that work, and I'm
> still somewhat worried that a mechanism that is not used by default (I'm
> talking about unliting with an external command) may start to bit rot.
> But as long as you are commit
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:20:53PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> > I see some value in your proposal to replace GHC's unlit, mainly in
> > terms of setting a common standard. Personally, I'd still feel more
> > comfortable if that proposed standard would be developed as a Hackage
> > package,
Dear Simon,
On 13 Aug 2012, at 15:18, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the clarification.
>
> I see some value in your proposal to replace GHC's unlit, mainly in
> terms of setting a common standard. Personally, I'd still feel more
> comfortable if that proposed standard would be developed
Hi Philip,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:57:44PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> > What is the benefit of doing so?
>
> - Simpler build environment
>
> - Easier to understand interaction and bugs resulting from them (viz.
> [1], [2]), because the interactions happen in the same domain
>
> - (as
On 13 Aug 2012, at 13:20, Simon Hengel wrote:
> What is the benefit of doing so?
- Simpler build environment
- Easier to understand interaction and bugs resulting from them (viz. [1],
[2]), because the interactions happen in the same domain
- (as mentioned in the proposal) Simplification of the A
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:02:59AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> My proposal, however, is to replace the external unlit
..
> by code *inside* GHC.
What is the benefit of doing so?
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskel
Dear Simon,
On 13 Aug 2012, at 10:23, Simon Hengel wrote:
> I think it makes sense, that you do not want to depend on pandoc for
> GHC's build process. But would a more lightweight unlit for Markdown
> work?
Ultimately, all unlitting does is replace things not in code blocks by white
lines. Bir
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:45:51AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> >> However, it's a bit of an overspec'd package to link into the
> >> compiler, don't you think?
> >
> > I did not mean to modify the Compiler. Unliting is done by an
> > external program. This already allows you to customize
On 9 Aug 2012, at 15:26, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Just to clarify, I was not talking about pandoc, but pandoc-unlit (which
> uses pandoc to unlit Markdown, see the README [1]).
Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I know about the program and it depends on
the library.
>> However, it's a bit of an o
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:07:10PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> I have looked at pandoc and I use it for quite a few things.
Just to clarify, I was not talking about pandoc, but pandoc-unlit (which
uses pandoc to unlit Markdown, see the README [1]).
> However, it's a bit of an overspec'd pa
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:00:44PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> Dear GHC-ers,
>
> A little while ago, I submitted a new feature request on the Trac. I'm
> more than happy to build this myself, but I would like to get it right
> the first time, so I'm looking for comments from developers
22 matches
Mail list logo
