On 22 September 2010 02:05Duncan Coutts <dun...@well-typed.com> wrote: > On 22 September 2010 01:32, Manuel M T Chakravarty <c...@cse.unsw.edu.au> > wrote: > >>> Manuel: would you like to talk to Ben, Gabi, Roman, and decide what you'd >>> like us to do for the release. Specifically: >>> >>> - Release with DPH, or rely on 'cabal install dph'? >>> - Push the new refactoring into the branch; or not? >> >> Below I attach a summary of our Tuesday Skype call. I would like to stick >> to the plan that we formulated during that call — that is: >> >> * Release 7.0 including DPH using the new library that is based on vector. > > Can I make another suggestion for a way to let ghc ship vector etc > without needing to put vector through the HP package proposal process: > put all the dph "backend" libs into a separate package database and > make -fvectorise imply not just -package blah but also the appropriate > -package-conf flag.
Just to note for everyone else: my suggestion will not work because there is no single flag that distinguishes DPH programs. DPH programs can import dph modules but otherwise not use any special language features or compilation options. As a simple alternative we discussed using a package name like "dph-vector", though I would prefer something more obscure still so that users who read Don's blog posts about how cool the vector package is will not end up depending on this package. We don't want to reuse the name "dph-prim-seq" because that'd confuse everyone. How about "dph-prim-vec"? Duncan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
