On 16/05/2010 20:49, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:06:21AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
- we make -dynamic the default.
It's perhaps worth investigating the consequences of the first option, making -dynamic the default. Cabal would have to --enable-dynamic by default - perhaps it would get an --enable-static that could even be *off* by default.
I'm a bit confused. When you say "we make -dynamic the default", do you mean "ghc foo.hs" uses the dynamic way?
Yes.
Isn't the important thing that Cabal builds libs the dynamic way by default?
That too. But the point is that if you say $ ghc -c hello.hs $ ghci hello then it works, rather than giving you an obscure error about needing to recompile hello.hs with -dynamic, or perhaps ignoring the .o file completely. A separate issue is that if you say $ cabal install foo $ ghci -package foo then it should work, rather than giving you an obscure error telling you to 'cabal install foo --enable-dynamic --reinstall', or something.
We'd still have to build them the static way too, if ghc keeps using static by default.
Well, perhaps static would not be the default any more. I'm just trying to explore the design space here, at the moment I don't see a solution that is win-win. Cheers, Simon