[Haskell] Re: package mounting

Frederik Eaton frederik at a5.repetae.net
Mon Oct 30 12:38:43 EST 2006

I wouldn't be opposed to this suggestion, if people think that it's
not too confusing. It would certainly make many things easier. My
original proposal was more conservative in part because I'd thought
that people might be reluctant to open up new sinks for design
complexity in Haskell programs - but of course, we would hope the
effect of Samuel's additional features will be to simplify design in
the long run.


On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 06:37:16AM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Frederik Eaton <frederik at a5.repetae.net> wrote:
> >> What about packages with multiple module trees like, say, Cabal?
> >
> >That's a good question, and I think the right answer is not to do
> >anything special to support them. I assume that what you're referring
> >to with Cabal is that there is no common prefix for all of the module
> >names, but rather a small set of common prefixes (Distribution.*,
> >Language.Haskell.Extension). Under my proposal, if we want to get rid
> >of the 'Distribution' module prefix within the Cabal source code, then
> >we'll have to either rename the Language.Haskell.Extension module, or
> >move it to another package.
> Erg. That sounds icky :-(. Maybe we ought to have a flag that takes
> package name, default mountpoint, and replacement mountpoint? And the
> cabal would look like this:
> The package would export:
> X11.Types
> X11.Xlib
> X11.Xlib.Atom
> X11.Xlib.Event
> X11.Xlib.Display
> ...
> and have:
> Default-Bases: X11=Graphics.X11
> Other packages would import it like this if they wanted the Types
> module at Graphics.Unix.X11.Types:
> Build-Depends: X11(X11=Graphics.Unix.X11)
> Who knows what the GHC flags ought to look like...


More information about the Libraries mailing list