On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?
Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?
OK, done. The new option is --strip-c89.
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.
In message <20070914171244.GA11741@soi.city.ac.uk> libraries@haskell.org, cabal-devel@haskell.org writes:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?
Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?
OK, done. The new option is --strip-c89.
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.
Cabal knows the version of cpphs so it can use the new flag or the old one depending on the version of cpphs being used. Duncan
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:38:41PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
In message <20070914171244.GA11741@soi.city.ac.uk> libraries@haskell.org, cabal-devel@haskell.org writes:
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.
Cabal knows the version of cpphs so it can use the new flag or the old one depending on the version of cpphs being used.
OK, so time to bump the version number of cpphs, then?
Ross Paterson
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs?
Hmm. There could be a better solution. Since no released version of cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the flags. In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag. Thoughts? Regards, Malcolm
participants (3)
-
Duncan Coutts -
Malcolm Wallace -
Ross Paterson