There's support for more fine-grained distinctions now. We hav -fffi -fglasgow-exts -farrows -fparr (Manuel's parallel array stuff) We could add -fth (or -fTH?) if that seemed better S | -----Original Message----- | From: Ralf Hinze [mailto:ralf@informatik.uni-bonn.de] | Sent: 24 June 2003 13:42 | To: Ketil Z. Malde; Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: John Meacham; glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: Re: @-bindings broken in 6.0? | | > I think lumping all these extensions under one switch is the | > problem. | | Yep, I agree. Would it be hard to split `-fglasgow-exts' | up? I'd greatly appreciate a more fine-grained control | here. | | Cheers, Ralf |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:18:33PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
-farrows
Is this switch documented somewhere? I looked through the docs in the latest CVS version of GHC and couldn't find anything about it ...
It has just appeared, and is still very brittle. Documentation will follow soon. In the meantime, there's Simon's commit message http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cvs-all/2003-June/027947.html and materials at http://www.haskell.org/arrows/
"Simon Peyton-Jones"
There's support for more fine-grained distinctions now. We hav -fffi -fglasgow-exts -farrows -fparr (Manuel's parallel array stuff)
We could add -fth
(or -fTH?) if that seemed better
I think, -fth would be a good idea. (I'd go for lower case, for consistency with -fffi.) Manuel
| -----Original Message----- | From: Ralf Hinze [mailto:ralf@informatik.uni-bonn.de] | Sent: 24 June 2003 13:42 | To: Ketil Z. Malde; Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: John Meacham; glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: Re: @-bindings broken in 6.0? | | > I think lumping all these extensions under one switch is the | > problem. | | Yep, I agree. Would it be hard to split `-fglasgow-exts' | up? I'd greatly appreciate a more fine-grained control | here. | | Cheers, Ralf |
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
GHC supports dozens of type system extensions, which is great. However, many of them come with their own syntax, which makes separate switches hard to implement. One relatively mild extension is support for existential types. Now, if we adopt the debatable and debated convention that local type variables on the rhs of type declarations are implicitly existentially quantified, then this particular extension does not need any new syntax. Which in turn might make a separate switch such as -fexistentials relatively easy to implement? Cheers, Ralf
Loads of separate switches is great for finessing a build, but there will still be a catch-call like -fglasgow-exts, right? -- Andy Moran Ph. (503) 526 3472 Galois Connections Inc. Fax. (503) 350 0833 3875 SW Hall Blvd. http://www.galois.com Beaverton, OR 97005 moran@galois.com
participants (6)
-
Andy Moran -
Manuel M T Chakravarty -
Peter Simons -
Ralf Hinze -
Ross Paterson -
Simon Peyton-Jones