23 Sep
2005
23 Sep
'05
7:44 a.m.
Another way to look at both issues is that if ghc can figure out other modules and packages itself, the user shouldn't be required to specify them in a cabal file. ...
Definitely. Having the list of modules in the .cabal is unnecessary duplication of information (because it's in the sources already). This is bound to get out-of-sync during development - unless you use some kind of Makefile to generate the .cabal file, which defeats the very purpose of Cabal itself. Unrelated question: can someone please share an example that shows how to put user-defined options for haddock in a .cabal? Thanks, -- -- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 -- ---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ -------