Hi all, As a matter of fact, bugs are currently being fixed in a steady, perhaps even an increasing, tempo. But you're right that there should be some formal system that (1) acknowledges reported bugs, (2) makes it easy to determine who's working on a particular bug fix, and (3) clearly indicates which bugs have been fixed. I.e., what we need is a bug tracking system for Hugs. I've been investigating some alternatives for such a system recently, but haven't yet come to any firm conclusion. The ghc team has recently moved its repository to SourceForge, though, and one of the benefits with such an arrangement is that bug tracking can be handled using the SourceForge Tracking system. From what I've heard that system is really excellent. So I'm posing this question to the interested public: Is it time to consider moving Hugs to SourceForge too? -- Johan On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 07:57 AM, Steinitz, Dominic J wrote:

Alastair,

It's good to know someone is doing something with reported bugs. toUpper being in the wrong library is a minor annoyance so it doesn't sound like the effort of fixing it is worth it. The other bug about not behaving properly for i with a circumflex is more serious and I hope will be fixed.

I'd like to suggest that someone acknowledges receipt of bugs even if it's just to say no-one has time to fix it at the moment but it's been put in a list of things to fix and won't get forgotten about.

Dominic.

reid@cs.utah.edu on 15/08/2001 23:25:00 To: Dominic Steinitz cc: hugs-bugs bcc: Subject: Re: toUpper Bug?

[reply just sent to hugs-bugs]

...

Maybe if this one is going to be fixed, toUpper could be put in the correct library as well?

I'm assuming this is a reference to the fact that toUpper is exported both from Char (correct) and from Prelude (incorrect)?

A quick check of Prelude.hs and hugs98/src/*.c reveals no good reason why this code is in the Prelude. Perhaps some vague code tidiness argument about keeping related code together?

So, it could be fixed quite easily but there's a bunch of similar deviations from the standard which are not easily fixed because the Prelude (or some part of the Hugs compiler) depends on the function which, with the current Hugs implementation, implies that there has to be a copy in the Prelude.

We don't want to make 2 copies of the same code though (one in the Prelude but not exported, one in the correct place and exported) because it leads to code maintenance problems. Suppose that toUpper had a bug in it - it'd be so easy to fix one copy and forget about the existence of the second.

Another fix (the preferred fix) is to improve the Hugs compiler so that the code can have (almost) the same structure as in the report. We know how to do this (STG-Hugs had it) but it'll take a bit of time to figure out again exactly which changes are required because the special treatment of the Prelude is deeply wired into Hugs. (More precisely, it'll take me a bit of time to find the time to look through the relevant archives.)

-- Alastair Reid reid@cs.utah.edu http://www.cs.utah.edu/~reid/

_______________________________________________ Hugs-Bugs mailing list Hugs-Bugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21st century air travel http://www.britishairways.com

_______________________________________________ Hugs-Bugs mailing list Hugs-Bugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs