On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
To me it seems simple and obvious!  Why are we going round the houses to do something so simple?

So cabal can maintain its conceit that it supports more than just ghc.

I don't understand this as an argument against the ghc-db library, which to me also seems the simple and obvious solution. 

Having a ghc-db library will mean one of two options:
1. The ghc-db is GHC-specific and will be used by the GHC specific wrappers in Cabal: doesn't cabal already deals with each compiler differently?
2. The ghc-db is really hs-db and a library contract that can be reused by all haskell compilers (i.e. part of The Haskell Cabal)

In both cases, the assumption is that ghc-db/hs-db should have a stable API.

Now, choosing option (1) doesn't eliminate option (2). When and if there is a broad agreement across all compilers, ghc-db could become hs-db and be incorporate into The Haskell Cabal.
 




--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com                                  ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel