GHC and Haskell 98
Simon Marlow
marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 13:35:12 CEST 2011
On 17/06/2011 16:42, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:11, Jacques Carette<carette at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>> they chose to stick to pure Haskell 98. Plan B is actually more fragile in
>> that respect, in that if they forget to be really really explicit about
>> their code being pure Haskell 98, the resulting compilation errors do not
>> make it obvious that that is actually the problem. This will in fact only
>> get worse as time goes by.
>
> This is a very good point that is glossed over by the proposal: is
> Haskell 98 the default or is the current Haskell standard the default,
> and how do we handle existing code bases that might be broken by
> incompatible changes (the point of this discussion)? It's really the
> same question seen from a higher level.
>
When you're using Cabal, there's no "default", because all package
dependencies are specified explicitly.
When using standalone GHCi or ghc the plan A default would be
- LANGUAGE Haskell2010
- -package base
whereas currently (GHC 7.0) it is
- LANGUAGE Haskell2010
- -package base -package haskell98
which is already a bit weird.
We could make it
- LANGUAGE Haskell2010
- -package haskell2010
but that would confuse a lot of people for negligible gain.
Cheers,
Simon
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users
mailing list