On 04 January 2005 15:39, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:31:44PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 04 January 2005 10:36, Ross Paterson wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to second Krasimir's suggestion that package description
>>> files be called Package.description (or package.description), which
>>> seems obviously more appropriate than Setup.description. In
>>> addition, these files will be used by other tools as well as Cabal
>>> setup scripts.
>>
>> Actually I'm slightly in favour of <package>.{hspkg,hsproj}. The
>> point of a file suffix is to give some useful information about the
>> contents of the file, and preferably to uniquely identify its format;
>> .description is just too vague (although I don't know of any other
>> uses for the .description suffix).
>
> Fine, but I meant "package" rather than <package>,
And I meant <package> rather than "package" :-)
> as there's only one in a directory, and a fixed name will make it
> easier to find (especially as you don't know the name of the package
> until you read it).
It's not a big deal. I think the <package>.hsproj form makes things
easier in Visual Studio, but I can't remember the details right now. At
the moment in VS when we create a new package, we create
<package>.hsproj, but we can load up Package.description just fine so
it's probably not a fundamental restriction.
Cheers,
Simon
