"Simon Marlow"
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 Ross pointed out, one problem with that is finding the file itself. It also sorta violates the "don't repeat yourself" principal of keeping data in sync. I suppose one good thing is that we could possibly have several project files in a single directory, if that ever became an interesting thing to do for some reason. - If there is more than one .hsproj in the directory, do we try to build them both, or do we exit with an error? - If the foo.hsproj does not match "name: foo" (case insensitive?) in the file itself, we should exit with an error. - Obviously, if we can't find any .hsproj file, then we exit with an error. - Is it possible to create a package name that uses characters that are invalid for a filename? - Should we get rid of case sensitivity in package names? I've noticed that ghc -package Cabal is different from ghc -package cabal. Since some filesystems are case insensitive (including Mac OS X, right?) it would probably be best to be consistent about case sensitivity across the board. I guess we could say that package names in the files are case insensitive, but otherwise they're not? Those are all the issues I can think of offhand, and none of them are too bad. It would probably be better to have a single file than have VS create the file with duplicate information. I'm a bit of a fan of having a simple, fixed filename, for simplicity's sake, and I'm a bit of a fan of not changing this interface under the folks who are already using it, but I want to do the right thing before 1.0. I'm happy either way, but I don't want to search for all of Setup.description and foo.hsproj. peace, isaac