On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Yuri de Wit <ydewit@gmail.com> wrote:
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. 

I did not say it was a *sane* conceit; and in fact my choice of wording there was intended to bring it into question. My experience is Cabal and cabal-install try to maintain this, but in a way that doesn't actually accomplish the goal very well (see for example the abortive attempt at jhc cabal support).

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