Re: cpphs and C++-style comments

Ross Paterson writes:

...

...

Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs?

Hmm. There could be a better solution. Since no released version of cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the flags. In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag. Thoughts? Regards, Malcolm