Portability of Safe Haskell packages

It has been pointed out before that in order for Safe Haskell to be useful, libraries (especially core libraries) should be annotated properly with Safe Haskell LANGUAGE pragmas. However, that would make these libraries unusable with alternative Haskell implementations, even if otherwise they these libraries are Haskell2010. To quote the standard: If a Haskell implementation does not recognize or support a particular language feature that a source file requests (or cannot support the combination of language features requested), any attempt to compile or otherwise use that file with that Haskell implementation must fail with an error. Should it be advised to surround safe annotations with CPP #ifs? Or does anyone see a better way out of this contradiction? Roman

On 23 November 2012 15:47, Roman Cheplyaka
Should it be advised to surround safe annotations with CPP #ifs? Or does anyone see a better way out of this contradiction?
I think that would be good advice. Note that even if you're only using GHC then you still want to use CPP in order to support older GHC versions which don't support Safe Haskell as in: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/usb/1.1.0.4/doc/html/src/System-... Arguably, in that example it would be better to move the check for the availability of Safe Haskell to the cabal file which would define a CPP pragma SAFE_HASKELL which can be used in source files. Bas
participants (2)
-
Bas van Dijk
-
Roman Cheplyaka