Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: cabal: other-modules

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

Johannes Waldmann writes:

...

What happened was this: I still don't see why this "other-modules" is needed. Ok, I understand the technical reason that cabal does not do dependency analysis but morally, it should?

Why are people suddenly using the term "morally" when they mean "why doesn't this do what I think it should"?  None of its definitions seem to match what you mean: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=moral

The proper use of words isn't dictated by what is found in small dictionaries but by the speakers of the language. Also I would caution against the judgement 'sudden' if you haven't done a corpus check: the recency illusion can be a real pain. 'Morally' seems just the perfect word for this occasion --- concerned with right or proper conduct. In this case, potential discrepancies between the files that cabal 'knows' about when issuing different commands; or the sense of deceit when it 'appears' to work only for faults to appear further down the line. I would guess this is just something we have to live with if cabal can't be expected to include its own parser & dependency chaser. Documentation is always a good first step though :-) Cheers, D