[Haskell-cafe] Foo.Bar.hs filenames poll

Christopher Done chrisdone at gmail.com
Sun Dec 18 21:29:58 UTC 2016

Short version: here is the poll

I noticed recently that Foo.Bar.hs is supported by GHC. I had always
assumed it wasn't because people always use directories.

I've never liked having separate directories for each level of hierarchy.
It's easier to just list a list of files and script (e.g. even copying a
file X.hs to Y.hs is a bummer). When opening them on GitHub you have to
click through to get a complete picture of a project.

Other languages do and don't do this. Lispers, for example, don't.

How do other Haskellers feel about it? Would it mess with anybody's tooling
or mojo if I switched to that style in my packages?

For one I know that Stack (my own implementation), actually assumes
hierarchical filenames. So I'd have to patch that to implement this. E.g.

> Unable to find a known candidate for the Cabal entry "HIndent.Types", but
did find: HIndent.Types.hs. If you are using a custom preprocessor for this
module with its own file extension, consider adding the file(s) to your
.cabal under extra-source-files.

I suppose the real question is, as a language standard and a community
preference, should this be considered a bug? Should people be free to use
X.Y.hs or X/Y.hs styles?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20161218/b2d25e31/attachment.html>

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list