ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.10.1 - EditLine / terminal
marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 09:01:11 EST 2008
Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 12:51 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Duncan Coutts wrote:
>>> What I really think is that we should add back optional readline
>>> support. People building closed source ghc binaries would not use it but
>>> linux distros could enable it and provide a better "out of the box"
>>> experience. As I understand it there would be no licencing problems with
>>> that approach.
>> One downside I can see is that it gives us an extra configuration to test
>> and maintain. It's hard enough keeping one line-editing binding working,
>> let alone two!
>> It's true that editline seems to have brought a bunch of headaches with it,
>> though. Perhaps Haskelline is the way to go in the future.
> My selfish suggestion is that we maintain the readline configuration and
> let the people who originally wanted editline support do the work to
> maintain that configuration. I get the feeling they don't care about if
> it works well, just that it's got the license they want (which is a
> perfectly reasonable position).
I propose we do this:
* extract the GHCi UI from the GHC package, put it in the ghc-bin package
(maybe we should rename this package to ghc-main or something). This
removes the editline and bytestring (for now) dependencies from the GHC
* Move to Haskeline for the default build. We have to bring in terminfo
and utf8-string as bootlibs. This gives us line-editing on Windows,
and removes problematic external C library dependencies.
* Make it possible to compile the ghc-bin package against readline.
Upload ghc-bin to Hackage, so people can say
cabal install ghc-bin -f readline
and get a GHCi built against readline if they want. Oops - except that
this would mean that the ghc-main package has a variant license. So
maybe we have to have a separate ghc-readline package?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users