Re: runhaskell rather than runghc

On 9/30/07, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:

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?

Earlier this year, Sven Panne provided[1] a good reason not to directly install 'runhaskell': [1] http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2007-March/012173.htm... regards, Bas