[ghc-steering-committee] #511 Deep Subsumption, recommendation: accept

Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de
Tue Jun 21 10:32:44 UTC 2022


Am Dienstag, dem 21.06.2022 um 10:47 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow:
> If it's backported to 9.2, then code wanting to use it would need to
> have a `ghc >= 9.2.4` constraint in the `.cabal` file, which is a bit
> unusual. We don't normally add new language features in a patchlevel
> release. But this isn't a strong argument for not doing it I guess -
> you would need that constraint if you relied on some bug that was
> fixed in 9.2.4 too.

Slight digression, but does Cabal even allow specifying bounds on the
compiler implementation? If you put this into the build-depends it
might have that effect, but it will also depend on ghc-the-library, not
what people usually do.

If I need to depend on a specific version of GHC, I tend to peek at
and hope that base was bumped together with it, and depend on that
version of base. Is there a better way?

Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list