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

[Simon Marlow]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 11:33, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>

Yes, you can do this (stolen from one of my .cabal files):

    if impl(ghc >= 8.8)
      buildable: True
    else
      buildable: False

Cheers
Simon


> If I need to depend on a specific version of GHC, I tend to peek at
>
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/commentary/libraries/version-history
> and hope that base was bumped together with it, and depend on that
> version of base. Is there a better way?
>
> Cheers,
> Joachim
> --
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20220621/fc8de72f/attachment-0001.html>