Release/git plans

Neil Mitchell ndmitchell at
Sat Jan 22 18:20:52 CET 2011

Hi Austin,

The compiler plugins work is a great, and I'd be a likely user. The
original version wasn't supported on Windows, because GHC on Windows
lacked various forms of dynamic linking. Does the current patch you've
prepared work on Windows?

Thanks, Neil

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Max Bolingbroke
<batterseapower at> wrote:
> On 21 January 2011 23:59, austin seipp <as at> wrote:
>> Perhaps Max can
>> elaborate on why this design was rejected in favor of the current one,
>> so we can see how and where it falls down, and what we really want.
> The only reason really is that it added a lot of mechanism. From the
> top of my head:
>  * Parsing etc for PHASE pragmas that declared phase objects
>  * A new namespace for phases
>  * Stuff to gather declared phases from all imported modules during compilation
>  * A built-in phase for each core pass
>  * A solver that ordered core passes and plugin passes according to the phases
> So it was a lot of trouble for relatively little gain. In an effort to
> keep the delta against GHC small I threw it out in favour of the much,
> much simpler design we have today.
>> Thomas pointed out the Scala compiler plugin design document, so I'll
>> be sure to read over it this weekend when I get the chance to cook up
>> ideas.
> The Scala plugins project was just starting when I was working on GHC
> plugins so there was no design doc I could refer to at that time.
> Shame :-(
> Thanks for taking the lead on resurrecting plugins, Austin!
> Cheers,
> Max
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list