Cabal vs Haskell (was RE: build-depends harmful (was RE: import
simonmar at microsoft.com
Wed Apr 20 07:15:42 EDT 2005
On 20 April 2005 11:56, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
> Lastly, I think you proposal to add package naes to the source is
> seriously at odds with your commment from earlier:
I'm not proposing to add package names to source code.
The rest of your post was based on this misconception, so I won't answer
I realise my description of the idea wasn't as complete as it could have
been. I'll try to describe the idea more precisely. (note this isn't a
proposal as such).
- source code continues to use module *names* only.
- define module *identifier* as (package name, module name) pair
- in the context of each module's source, there is assumed to be
a mapping from module name to module identifier established by
some external mechanism.
The "external mechanism" referred to here could be GHC's -package flags,
or Cabal's build-depends, for example. For the purposes of the language
definition, it doesn't matter.
> Also, the Haskell module hierarchy is supposed to reflect
> functionality, whereas package names are purely administrative.
> This is a reason for not including package names in source code.
My position on this has (still) not changed!
More information about the Libraries