commercialhaskell / commercialhaskell/stack
Use "extensions" field in stack's cabal file?
Open
type: discuss
- Dominant language
- Haskell
- Stars
- 4.1k
- Forks
- 850
- Avg merge
- 10h 37m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
What do folks think of making use of the `extensions` field in cabal, and removing some boilerplate from our modules? I believe the decision was made initially in order to support ghci. However, with `stack ghci` this is no longer an issue.
Contributor guide
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.