package description files

Simon Marlow simonmar at
Tue Jan 4 10:48:19 EST 2005

On 04 January 2005 15:39, Ross Paterson wrote:

> 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>, 

And 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).

It's not a big deal.  I think the <package>.hsproj form makes things
easier in Visual Studio, but I can't remember the details right now.  At
the moment in VS when we create a new package, we create
<package>.hsproj, but we can load up Package.description just fine so
it's probably not a fundamental restriction.


More information about the Libraries mailing list