ijones at syntaxpolice.org
Wed May 18 13:11:44 EDT 2005
"S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex at alexjacobson.com> writes:
> With Cabal, if you download two packages, how do you know that they
> won't require conflicting versions of another module/package?
That's specified by the dreaded build-depends field, of course.
> The reality is that, no matter what, you always have to assume that
> the user and author of a particular module/package need to live in
> basically the same universe of modules and packages.
> The advantage of SearchPath over the status quo is that its module
> maps make this universe explicit and versionable rather than tacit and
There you go again.
> The implicit maps of Cabal's "build-depends" are an invitation for
What's implicit about build-depends again?
> You have no particularly good reason to assume that any two
> packages will be compatible.
You don't have to assume anything. The packager tells you which
packages are compatible.
> SearchPath's explicit shared module maps makes it much less likely
> that author and user will end up with different meanings for a
> particular module name and make it much less likly that the user
> won't be able to resolve module dependencies, making code reuse much
> more likely.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Hackage (not cabal) ensures that
the end user can resolve module dependencies.
More information about the Libraries