[Haskell-cafe] Foo.Bar.hs filenames poll
eyeinsky9 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 21:38:36 UTC 2016
There was discussion of this some years ago, too lazy to find it. I think
John Meacham's jhc supported it, and there was discussion if it should be
added to ghc, the general opinion wasn't too eager so nothing happened.
On Dec 18, 2016 10:30 PM, "Christopher Done" <chrisdone at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe