Add support for GHC 9-9.12#20
Conversation
|
Tested working on 9.4, still have fixes to make 9.2 and 9.0 working |
|
@jimbob88 Thank you for the PR! |
|
Hi, no problem! This extension was really useful to me. I predict 9.0 and 9.2 still will not work. There were some crazy changes to ghc at this time! |
|
Indeed, the CI is failing. Should we add support? (I wonder if anyone is actually using this version of GHC.) |
I think it is worth supporting 9.4, should be relatively trivial. Currently working on getting CI working now. I hadn't tried running the same tests as the CI, a potential problem is the verbosity of 9.12 with the tests matching ghc output. I do agree though about 9.0 and 9.2. I do not see much reason in supporting them (and they did some odd changes to the syntax tree, like wrapping quite a few things in |
|
Then, shall we drop support for 9.0 and 9.2 and proceed with 9.4 if the cost of support is low? I’m also thinking of adding CI settings for 9.6 and later. (If the output changes in 9.12, it seems like preparing a new
Thank you. Are you currently working on the support for ghc-9.4? |
Adds support for ghc 9.12, 9.10, 9.8, 9.6 (and will start working on support for 9.2 and 9.4)
Test Results