frederik at a5.repetae.net
Tue Oct 31 03:40:42 EST 2006
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Frederik Eaton <frederik at a5.repetae.net> writes:
> >> It looks nice, but don't you think the -package-base flag ought to
> >> take both the package name *and* the mountpoint?
> > My intention was that -package-base specifies a base for the package
> > specified in the preceding -package flag [...]
> > In other words, it is an optional argument and the syntax is
> > ghc ... -package PACKAGE -package-base BASE ...
> How about something like
> ghc ... -package PACKAGE at BASE
> (where the @BASE part is optional)?
I don't know. Do we want to prevent packages from ever having '@' in
their name? Your suggestion seems reasonable, I just thought that my
version would be easier. Also, there's no reason why we couldn't start
with my '-package-base' option syntax and then add your '-package
PACKAGE at BASE' syntax later if it still seems like a good idea... so
maybe we should just postpone the decision.
More information about the Libraries