Re: [Haskell-cafe] Foo.Bar.hs filenames poll

Hi Chris, When I proposed adding support for more useful literate haskell extensions (i.e. allow Foo.lhs.md and Foo.lhs.rst) I encountered this too and after further investigation discovered that the Report has *0* specification of how module names are supposed to map to file names/directories. As such, it's impossible to actually write portable source code. The common version of one directory per component with a file for the end seems the most commonly supported one across GHC, Hugs and UHC, which is I think why people using it (And probably why the multiple components in a file name is best avoided). For tools like stack (and everyone's sanity in general) I think it would be best to standardise how modules are resolved, but when I last floated this idea it got shot down, so.... Cheers, Merijn

On 18 Dec 2016, at 22:29, Christopher Done wrote:

Short version: here is the poll https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdniOfoaX7xflgdWRnjVQ6_VLtk1oxA00SoK3KPMUsoTSPZDw/viewform?c=0&w=1

I noticed recently that Foo.Bar.hs is supported by GHC. I had always assumed it wasn't because people always use directories.

I've never liked having separate directories for each level of hierarchy. It's easier to just list a list of files and script (e.g. even copying a file X.hs to Y.hs is a bummer). When opening them on GitHub you have to click through to get a complete picture of a project.

Other languages do and don't do this. Lispers, for example, don't.

How do other Haskellers feel about it? Would it mess with anybody's tooling or mojo if I switched to that style in my packages?

For one I know that Stack (my own implementation), actually assumes hierarchical filenames. So I'd have to patch that to implement this. E.g.

...

Unable to find a known candidate for the Cabal entry "HIndent.Types", but did find: HIndent.Types.hs. If you are using a custom preprocessor for this module with its own file extension, consider adding the file(s) to your .cabal under extra-source-files.

I suppose the real question is, as a language standard and a community preference, should this be considered a bug? Should people be free to use X.Y.hs or X/Y.hs styles?

Ciao! _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.