[Haskell-cafe] Re: Packages and modules

Simon Marlow simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Wed Jul 5 09:32:35 EDT 2006

Niklas Broberg wrote:
>> So here are some options:
>>    1. the proposal as it is now, keeping exposed/hidden state in the
>>       package database, don't support "available"
>>    2. Add support for "available".  Cons: yet more complexity!
>>    3. Drop the notion of exposed/hidden, all packages are "available".
>>       (except for base?).  Cons: lots more typing, very
>>       non-backwards-compatible, still have to list dependencies in
>>       .cabal files.
>> anyone have any more suggestions?  Is there any way to simplify?  I
>> rather feel this design is getting a little unwieldy.
> Maybe a dumb question, but why not support only exposed and available?
> Why have hidden modules that cannot be used, even when the programmer
> explicitly asks for them?

The main reason for wanting hidden is so that we can be sure that the 
build-depends field of a Cabal package is exhaustive; we currently do 
this by making all packages not listed in build-depends hidden.

Outside of Cabal, I don't see a reason for wanting hidden.


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list