package description files

Ross Paterson ross at
Tue Jan 4 10:38:35 EST 2005

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:31:44PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 04 January 2005 10:36, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > I'd like to second Krasimir's suggestion that package description
> > files be called Package.description (or package.description), which
> > seems obviously more appropriate than Setup.description.  In
> > addition, these files will be used by other tools as well as Cabal
> > setup scripts.
> Actually I'm slightly in favour of <package>.{hspkg,hsproj}.  The point
> of a file suffix is to give some useful information about the contents
> of the file, and preferably to uniquely identify its format;
> .description is just too vague (although I don't know of any other uses
> for the .description suffix).

Fine, but I meant "package" rather than <package>, as there's only one
in a directory, and a fixed name will make it easier to find (especially
as you don't know the name of the package until you read it).

More information about the Libraries mailing list