Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 12:12:51PM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote:
runghc -- -- -fglasgow-exts
would be needed to run a file named "-fglasgow-exts", compared to
I don't think we should worry too much about making it easy for people
to call their sources -fglasgow-exts.hs. In fact
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 12:12:51PM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>
> runghc -- -- -fglasgow-exts
>
> would be needed to run a file named "-fglasgow-exts", compared to
I don't think we should worry too much about making it easy for people
to call their sources -fglasgow-exts.hs. In fact, I'm not eve
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:34:32AM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote:
Hmm, ghc doesn't take '-f' as an argument alone... the odd '--'
interpretation
It's actually a standard way to separate groups of arguments, e.g.
touch -- -a
rm -- -a
will create and remove a file called
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:34:32AM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>
> Hmm, ghc doesn't take '-f' as an argument alone... the odd '--'
> interpretation
It's actually a standard way to separate groups of arguments, e.g.
touch -- -a
rm -- -a
will create and remove a file called -a, and
s
Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:55:05PM -0400, Magnus Jonsson wrote:
Previously runghc only supported "runghc -fpath-to-ghc Main.hs".
With this patch it also supports "runghc -f path-to-ghc Main.hs", as it
claims in its syntax help message.
Thanks again for the patch.
Hi Magnus,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:55:05PM -0400, Magnus Jonsson wrote:
> Previously runghc only supported "runghc -fpath-to-ghc Main.hs".
> With this patch it also supports "runghc -f path-to-ghc Main.hs", as it
> claims in its syntax help message.
Thanks again for the patch. Contrary to wh
