On 07/03/2015 04:00 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote:

Hi,

On 3 July 2015 at 06:30, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

Hi all,

Am I missing something which necessitates using only the FilePath?

Adding extra info is absolutely fine, it's just that I never needed it. What do you want to add?

Well, I'd like to split up the "get all the information we need" bit from the individual commands. That would perhaps make it easier to validate things like "does GHC_PACKAGE_PATH [or whatever] point at an existing directory" in a consistent manner across all commands and thus hopefully provide better feedback for broken setups/environments. (I also tend to find it good "hygiene" to split things up this way, but that's perhaps more a matter of taste.) See e.g. the issue I pointed to: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/2381 (I don't think a full solution is possible at this time due to the fact that the env variables are only retrieved in the "exec" subcommand). Regards,

On 07/03/2015 05:53 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote:

Hi,

On 3 July 2015 at 16:47, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

Well, I'd like to split up the "get all the information we need" bit from the individual commands.

UseSandbox is produced by loadConfigOrSandboxConfig. Perhaps you can move your check there?

The checks rely on information which the sub-commands will use (or will have to look up a second time)... hence I want to store it in UseSandbox :). Regards,

On 07/03/2015 11:44 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote:

Hi,

On 3 July 2015 at 18:09, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

The checks rely on information which the sub-commands will use (or will have to look up a second time)... hence I want to store it in UseSandbox :).

Yeah, so you can do the check in loadConfigOrSandboxConfig and then put the result of it in the UseSandbox value that you return.

(Sorry, think I did a personal reply instead of reply-to-list. Here it is again for the rest of you...) Exactamundo. I take it there's no objections on the ground of "but UseSandbox MUST ..."? I took that sentinment from your first post. It'll probably be easier to evaluate these things properly when I produce actual pull req's. Regards,