On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
To re-iterate, my basic argument was that the software developer should have as much freedom as possible to organize his or her *sources* into an appropriate hierarchy, because the developer is the only one who has a full overview of all the various tools involved in a complicated project, their specific requirements and idiosyncrasies, compatibility issues between different compilers/interpreters, compatibility issues between different OS platforms, and so on, or simply wishing to apply what he or she judges to be sound judgement when it comes to organizing the sources.
Personally, I really dislike being forced to spread out what I regard as related sources over more than one directory just to assign the right "name" to the individual source files. I find it inconvenient and unfamiliar, and I know I'm not alone in this. Maybe I should point out that I'm typically not working with simple Haskell-only sources, but with a rather more complicated environment involving more than one language and various pre-processors. Perhaps this makes matters worse.
OK, you're arguing for a much more flexible relationship between filenames and module names. But is the very limited form offered by Hugs (A.B.C -> A.B.C.hs or A/B/C.hs) of any use as is? Do you use it?