<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body><div><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">If the intention is to use cpphs as a library, won't the license affect every program built with the GHC API? That seems to be a high price to pay.<br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><hr><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Från: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:hvriedel@gmail.com">Herbert Valerio Riedel</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Skickat: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">2015-05-08 11:02</span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Till: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:c.maeder@jacobs-university.de">Christian Maeder</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Kopia: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:Malcolm.Wallace@cs.york.ac.uk">Malcolm Wallace</a>; <a href="mailto:glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org">glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org</a>; <a href="mailto:libraries@haskell.org">libraries@haskell.org</a>; <a href="mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org">ghc-devs@haskell.org</a>; <a href="mailto:haskell-cafe@haskell.org">haskell-cafe</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Ämne: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal</span><br><br></div>Hello Christian,<br><br>(I've re-CC'ed haskell-cafe, assuming this wasn't deliberate)<br><br>On 2015-05-08 at 09:50:46 +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:<br>> using cpphs is the right way to go!<br>><br>> Rewriting it from scratch may be a good exercise but is (essentially) a<br>> waste of time.<br>><br>> However, always asking Malcolm to get source changes into cpphs would<br>> be annoying.<br>><br>> Therefore it would be great if the sources were just part of the ghc<br>> sources (under git).<br>><br>> Another "problem" might be the dependency "polyparse" that is currently<br>> not part of the core libraries.<br><br>A scheme was actually discussed privately to address this:<br><br>We certainly don't want to expose cpphs/polyparse (and text!) as new<br>packages in GHC's global pkg-db. Which we'd end up, if we handled cpphs<br>as the other exposed boot libraries.<br><br>Therefore we'd only use the few relevant modules from cpphs/polyparse as<br>"other-modules" (i.e. internal hidden dependencies -- i.e. we wouldn't<br>use cpphs/polyparse's .cabal files) compiled into GHC, but not<br>exposed. We'd either create a new Git submodule to hold our "fork" of<br>cpphs/polyparse, or just add it somewhere inside ghc.git<br><br>> (I guess that replacing polyparse by something else would also be a nice<br>> exercise.)<br>><br>> So (for me) the only question is, if Malcolm is willing to transfer<br>> control over cpphs to the haskell-community (or ghc head) - of course<br>> with due acknowledgements!<br><br>I don't think this will be necessary, as we don't need the<br>cpphs-upstream to mirror each modifications immediately. The benefit of<br>the scheme described above is that we'd be somewhat decoupled from cpphs'<br>upstream, and can freely experiment in our "fork", and can sync up with<br>Malcolm from time to time to merge improvements in both directions.<br><br>-- hvr<br>_______________________________________________<br>ghc-devs mailing list<br>ghc-devs@haskell.org<br>http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs<br></body></html>