cpphs and C++-style comments

[Malcolm Wallace]

Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> writes:

> > > Thanks.  Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option,
> > > and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be
> > > broken with the new cpphs?

Hmm.  There could be a better solution.  Since no released version of
cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only
the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the
flags.  In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used
to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the
eol-stripping flag.

Thoughts?

Regards,
    Malcolm