[Haskell-cafe] Re: Packages and modules
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