-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 For INLINE and NOINLINE the report uses "qvars" http://haskell.org/onlinereport/pragmas.html which is not defined in http://haskell.org/onlinereport/syntax-iso.html (although its meaning is obvious since var, qvar and vars are all defined). Is it permissible for compilers to die on pragma syntax they don't personally like? For example GHC chokes on {-# INLINE Ma-in.ma-in #-} at top level, but it would be worse with non-standardized pragmas. (the compiler giving a warning that it understands a pragma of that name, but not the syntax given, would be best.) "the pragma should be ignored if an implementation is not prepared to handle it." WHAT IS pragma syntax?? The report doesn't say how whitespace is handled. syntax-iso doesn't mention pragmas; in its opinion everything from {-# hi-} to {-#{-##-}#-} to {-# INLINE main #-} is a perfectly good comment. [1] But the report recommends some specific syntaxes. To all appearances, it is expected that they follow (guessing from other Haskell syntax) the form pragma -> {-# pragmaid (some pragma-specific syntax that is consistent with the whole thing being ncomment) #-} pragmaid -> (large|_) {large|_|'} Still... whitespace? GHC understands as a pragma {-# LINE 3 "foo.hs" #-} but not {-# {- nested comment -} LINE 3 "foo.hs" #-} ; I don't even know about inside or next to the (some pragma-specific syntax). Is the inside of pragmas supposed to be lexed somewhat the same way as the rest of the Haskell file, or "it can vary" because pragmas can be anything they want... hopefully the convention of beginning pragmas with a name cannot vary. [1] (hmm, maybe pragmas should be used to indicate haddock comments - too late now, and probably too verbose too) Isaac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdCuyHgcxvIWYTTURAnljAJ9NLJKW+CTroJ0Vg43bgGWZ3DXJHwCgp+Z3 SAX/cK5PSV7B4TBfwg664xM= =81g6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----