runhaskell rather than runghc

Dear GHC and Cabal developers and users, I suggest to use `runhaskell' rather than `runghc'. Because it looks to have more sense, and also for political correctness. Cabal is a tool for `making' various Haskell implementations. In 2015, we may have implementations ghc, Hugs, hbc, foo_1, ..., foo_n. Does Cabal need to provide runghc, runhugs, runhbc ... runfoo_n ? Do I mistake? Regards, ----------------- Serge Mechveliani mechvel@botik.ru