|
Re: Data instances in ghc 6.2.1?: msg#00047lang.haskell.glasgow.bugs
Claus Reinke wrote: For context: I wanted to show people in the haskell tools threadYes, it is easy! - why these lovely new tools won't be used because even without transformations they don't reproduce the source :-(Yes, but then, we should really work on reproducability of code! After all, you have gathered relevant experiences in the HaRe project. So the requirements are clear. How much work is it to incorporate comments and layout in a systematic manner? In GDK, we don't have any problems doing this for C-based combinator parsing. We use a simple wrapper pattern. Whenever, we fetch a token from the lexer, then we build a sandwich token that also comprises the comment/layout (identation) from before the token. Ok, since we go for an abstract syntax, we also need to catch keywords and all this. Also, we must switch off all normalisation in the parse tree construction. (Are there any normalisations going on in Language/Haskell? Probably, not In, gcc, for example, there is, which is problem.)
I have committed the extended Language/Haskell/Syntax.hs. Why not demonstrate, what you said, anyway, using CVS built from head? I would love to help with both: - this showcase - and improving Language/Haskell Cheers, Ralf
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: "charToUtf8 1883885648" panic on sparc, Ian Lynagh |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Data instances in ghc 6.2.1?, Simon Peyton-Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Data instances in ghc 6.2.1?, Claus Reinke |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Data instances in ghc 6.2.1?, Simon Peyton-Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |