simonmar at microsoft.com
Wed Dec 8 04:35:19 EST 2004
On 07 December 2004 17:56, Isaac Jones wrote:
> Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> writes:
>> It might be preferable not to unlit .lhs files, as all
>> implementations can handle them, and the originals are better for
>> human readers (such as Hugs users curious about their libraries).
>> There's no real need to unlit .ly files either, though some other
>> preprocessors will need it. (And should unlit be treated as just
>> another preprocessor?)
> Yeah... should we get rid of the unlit preprocessor?
>> As I understand it, preprocessing with cpp is only needed for Hugs,
>> as the compilers have -cpp flags, and will do it properly
>> themselves. For Hugs, cpp will need a -D__HUGS__ option, plus extra
>> options that are often system-dependent (and will also be needed by
>> the compilers). This harks back to the need to separate
>> system-dependent build parameters from the package description, and
>> provide hooks to generate and use them.
> I'll try to think more about this.
Another thing to bear in mind: at some point we want to provide './setup
haddock' (or maybe './setup haddock-html', './setup haddock-docbook',
...) and unlit/CPP will be required for that.
More information about the Libraries