Why is there a cabal file at all?
conal at conal.net
Sat Jan 13 16:31:30 EST 2007
True, another reason to make the .cabal file more complete - things like
preprocessors should not be in Setup.hs, for example.
How "complete" will be enough? My guess is Turing complete. When we get to
that point, I'd like the .cabal file to look like Haskell.
On 1/13/07, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From your argument I conclude that Haskell code unsafe in general, not
> > for package specification.
> That is indeed true. Donald has jumped through many hoops to try and
> make the code safer for Lambdabot. If you really want truely safe
> code, the best thing to do would be to add a patch to Yhc with a
> -sandbox flag which would be relatively easy to implement, and could
> give solid guarantees about what your code does.
> > If I were confident that the problem Cabal address is covered by
> > pairs, I might agree that functional programming is overkill. (Though
> > still dislike redundancy among my .cabal files.) However, the Cabal
> > are already insufficient for some needs, leading to auxilliary makefiles
> > and/or hacking your own Setup.lhs. And when people use these
> > the other Cabal-reading tools won't get the whole picture.
> True, another reason to make the .cabal file more complete - things
> like preprocessors should not be in Setup.hs, for example.
> > P.S. Thanks for the language tip. I had no idea.
> Me neither on the second meaning! I just use the term "get rooted" to
> mean someone breaks into your computer in malicious ways, since on my
> OS of choice there is no root account, only Admin, and most people run
> as Admin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cabal-devel