I thought the point of these extension flags was to be cross-compiler?
So it seems a bit odd to make a change for the benefit of one compiler.
Here's my interpretation: Rank2Types is not a synonym for RankNTypes.
It's a specific requirement the source file has. When GHC comes to
compile it, it can satisfy that requirement by switching on its
RankNTypes. Another compiler might support Rank2Types but not
RankNTypes, and it would also be able to compile the file.
-- Ashley
On 19/10/12 09:53, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
See my response on http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/6032#comment:6
Not sure what the best path is here
S
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 19 October 2012 17:39
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Don Stewart; Duncan Coutts; Roman Leshchinskiy;
| ash...@semantic.org; cabal-de...@haskell.org; Ben Lippmeier; Manuel M T
| Chakravarty; cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: deprecating
|
| Hi Simon,
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
| <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
| > As discussed in Trac #6032 I am deprecating
| >
| > Rank2Types
| >
| > PolymorphicComponents
| >
| > in favour of the single flag
| >
| > RankNTypes
|
| I'm fine with making the changes to cabal, but before I do, I want to
| make sure that we really want to do this. I did a quick investigation
| of how many modules need to be updated on Hackage. It's about 775.
| That will require quite a lot of work by quite a lot of people. Could
| we instead have Rank2Types be an alias for RankNTypes?
|
| Cheers,
| Johan
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
