RE: dashes in cabal package names
On 31 July 2004 18:42, Isaac Jones wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to allowing dashes within Cabal pacakge names? This might impact the parser for HC-PKG, but that's the way it is now, and seems to make the most sense.
I think the only change to HC-PKG would be to use a non-dash separator between the package and version; we can decide exactly how to do that at a later time.
Dashes in package names? Absolutely. I don't think you need a non-dash separator between the package name and the version number, just take the last dash in the package id as the name-version separator. (I really like the <pkgname>-<version> format, probably because it's so widespread these days). Cheers, SImon
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:42:38 +0100, Simon Marlow
On 31 July 2004 18:42, Isaac Jones wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to allowing dashes within Cabal pacakge names? This might impact the parser for HC-PKG, but that's the way it is now, and seems to make the most sense.
I think the only change to HC-PKG would be to use a non-dash separator between the package and version; we can decide exactly how to do that at a later time.
Dashes in package names? Absolutely. I don't think you need a non-dash separator between the package name and the version number, just take the last dash in the package id as the name-version separator.
(I really like the <pkgname>-<version> format, probably because it's so widespread these days).
We-ell, there's the issue of the version tags, which use dashes as separator. But if we disallow tags in the package-id, it shouldn't be a problem. foo-bar-0.1.2-bar-foo is harder to understand, though. :) /Martin
participants (2)
-
Martin Sjögren -
Simon Marlow