Let's play Name That Extension!
A large number of the newer GHC extensions have no cabal name. This is a very bad situation because if Hugs/yhc/etc were to gain support for (say) GADTs, it would not be possible to run cabal programs that require them, since the way programs specify dependency is with -fglasgow-exts. Also, what is the protocol for requesting cabal extension names? I've many Cool Extension Ideas for my haskeell impl project (nowhere near done). Stefan
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:41 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
A large number of the newer GHC extensions have no cabal name. This is a very bad situation because if Hugs/yhc/etc were to gain support for (say) GADTs, it would not be possible to run cabal programs that require them, since the way programs specify dependency is with -fglasgow-exts. Also, what is the protocol for requesting cabal extension names?
You could do worse than to make up a sensible name and darcs send in your patch to the Language.Haskell.Extension module to this list. Duncan
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 04:10:27PM +1000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:41 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
A large number of the newer GHC extensions have no cabal name. This is a very bad situation because if Hugs/yhc/etc were to gain support for (say) GADTs, it would not be possible to run cabal programs that require them, since the way programs specify dependency is with -fglasgow-exts. Also, what is the protocol for requesting cabal extension names?
You could do worse than to make up a sensible name and darcs send in your patch to the Language.Haskell.Extension module to this list.
Duncan
I'll take that as permission :) Stefan
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:15 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
You could do worse than to make up a sensible name and darcs send in your patch to the Language.Haskell.Extension module to this list.
I'll take that as permission :)
Hah hah. I didn't say we'd apply the patches ;-) But if you send patches then at least it gets people's attention and if people don't like it they'll object and perhaps come up with something better. Duncan
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:41:47PM -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
A large number of the newer GHC extensions have no cabal name. This is a very bad situation because if Hugs/yhc/etc were to gain support for (say) GADTs, it would not be possible to run cabal programs that require them, since the way programs specify dependency is with -fglasgow-exts. Also, what is the protocol for requesting cabal extension names? I've many Cool Extension Ideas for my haskeell impl project (nowhere near done).
Forgot to mention... Some of the existing extensions are not self explanatory. How flexible are FlexibleInstances and FlexibleContexts? Does Rank2Types involve the old GHC restrictions? (no pattern bindings, no partial application, etc) Does RankNTypes include impredicativity? Are ScopedTypeVariables 6.4 style, 6.6 style, (ML style)? What is a ContextStack? What are Generics? And the last two made no sense before I read the Hugs User Guide last(?) week. The others are fine however. Stefan
participants (2)
-
Duncan Coutts -
Stefan O'Rear