On 11/09/2003, at 9:46 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
I know that some of these problems can be addressed, at least in
part, by careful use of Makefiles, {-# custom pragmas #-}, and perhaps
by committing to a single tool solution. But I'd like to propose
a new approach that eliminates some of the
| We at GHC HQ agree, and for future extensions we'll move to
| using separate options to enable them rather than lumping
| everything into -fglasgow-exts. This is starting to happen
| already: we have -farrows, -fwith, -fffi (currently implied
| by -fglasgow-exts).
|
| Of course, if we
Mark Jones writes:
As a solution to that problem, the many-command-line-options
scheme described seems quite poor! It's far too tool specific,
not particularly scalable, and somewhat troublesome from a software
engineering perspective. We're not talking about a choice between
two points
Mark P Jones writes an interesting suggestion:
...
Hmm, ok, but perhaps you're worrying now about having to enumerate
a verbose list of language features at the top of each module you
write. Isn't that going to detract from readability? This is where
the module system wins big! Just
hello,
it's a pity i don't know how to get my mailer to reply to a few messages
at once :-)
i also like mark's idea. i know that ghc can alredy achive some of that
with the OPTION pragmas, but i think it is nice if we can reuse what is
already in the language rather than making programmers
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, if we change the language that is implied by -fglasgow-exts now,
we risk breaking old code :-) Would folk prefer existing syntax extensions
be moved into their own flags, or left in -fglasgow-exts for now? I'm
thinking of:
- implicit
I agree with Malcolm, with the possible addition of:
keep -fglasgow-exts as it is (or, even, perhaps continue making it the
add all extensions keyword). also have -fffi, -farrows, -fth, etc.
but also have, -fnoth and -fnoffi. that way, if a lot of us have code
that uses all the extensions
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 07:22 am, Hal Daume III wrote:
I agree with Malcolm, with the possible addition of:
keep -fglasgow-exts as it is (or, even, perhaps continue making it the
add all extensions keyword). also have -fffi, -farrows, -fth, etc.
but also have, -fnoth and -fnoffi.
At 13:13 10/09/03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Of course, if we change the language that is implied by -fglasgow-exts
now, we risk breaking old code :-) Would folk prefer existing syntax
extensions be moved into their own flags, or left in -fglasgow-exts for
now? I'm thinking of:
- implicit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Graham Klyne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- implicit parameters
- template haskell
- FFI
- rank-N polymorphism (forall keyword)
- recursive 'do' (mdo keyword)
...
Where do multi-parameter classes fit in?
I think some of the type extensions such as
10 matches
Mail list logo
