#9789: Make GHC accept .format+lhs as extension for literate haskell files -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: merijn | Owner: merijn Type: feature | Status: new request | Milestone: Priority: normal | Version: 7.9 Component: Compiler | Keywords: Resolution: | Architecture: Unknown/Multiple Operating System: | Difficulty: Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Blocked By: Type of failure: | Related Tickets: None/Unknown | Test Case: | Blocking: | Differential Revisions: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by thomie): Some hopefully constructive comments: * This proposal could use a [wiki:WorkingConventions/AddingFeatures wiki page] I think. It would describe the problem being addressed, the different proposals that were made, and why this solution was chosen (accepting `.format+lhs` as a file extension). * Maybe some combination of `-o` and [https://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.8.3/html/users_guide/modes.html #overriding-suffixes -x] command line options could be used to get the same effect? * This [https://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell- users/2014-March/024757.html mail] (proposing `.hs.format`) and [https://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell- users/2014-March/024747.html this one] (prososing a textual fingerprint in the module itself) never got a reply. * How does this feature interact with [https://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/separate- compilation.html boot files]: "Currently, if you use a literate source file A.lhs you must also use a literate boot file, A.lhs-boot; and vice versa." * How does this change affect other compilers (JHC was mentioned)? * Would this change need to go into a feature language report? Is it a language feature, does it need a flag? (I'm just trying to think if this change is a big deal or not, maybe I am overthinking things.) -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9789#comment:1 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler