Problem with hierarchical libraries in Hugs compared to ghc/nhc98

Ross Paterson
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:26:00 +0000

On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
> To re-iterate, my basic argument was that the software developer should
> have as much freedom as possible to organize his or her *sources* into
> an appropriate hierarchy, because the developer is the only one who has
> a full overview of all the various tools involved in a complicated project,
> their specific requirements and idiosyncrasies, compatibility issues between
> different compilers/interpreters, compatibility issues between different OS
> platforms, and so on, or simply wishing to apply what he or she judges to be
> sound judgement when it comes to organizing the sources.
> Personally, I really dislike being forced to spread out what I regard
> as related sources over more than one directory just to assign the right
> "name" to the individual source files. I find it inconvenient and unfamiliar,
> and I know I'm not alone in this. Maybe I should point out that I'm
> typically not working with simple Haskell-only sources, but with a rather
> more complicated environment involving more than one language and various
> pre-processors. Perhaps this makes matters worse.

OK, you're arguing for a much more flexible relationship between filenames
and module names.  But is the very limited form offered by Hugs (A.B.C ->
A.B.C.hs or A/B/C.hs) of any use as is?  Do you use it?