"Simon Marlow" <simonmar@microsoft.com> wrote,
* specifying libraries in the source isn't the right way to go. Library names change independently of APIs, and can be platform-specific.
I like the high level goal this is heading towards and was in complete agreement with implementing it in rules like this until.... I realised that all that Hugs sees is the source (i.e., there's no makefile to put extra compilation info into) - so if it ain't in the source, where is it?
But I like the rule...
Well... there's no reason why hugs couldn't use something like GHC's packages. In fact, it could use the scheme largely unchanged; but perhaps the package spec should be extended to include a path to source files (the alternative is to overload the path to the interface files and put the sources in the same place if you want to share a package between Hugs & GHC).
I think, a path to source files would be a good idea. Cheers, Manuel