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). Cheers, Simon
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>, 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).
participants (2)
-
Ross Paterson -
Simon Marlow