On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Johannes Waldmann <waldm...@imn.htwk-leipzig.de> writes: >> What happened was this: >> I still don't see why this "other-modules" is needed. >> Ok, I understand the technical reason that cabal >> does not do dependency analysis but morally, it should? > > Why are people suddenly using the term "morally" when they mean "why > doesn't this do what I think it should"? None of its definitions seem > to match what you mean: > http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=moral
The proper use of words isn't dictated by what is found in small dictionaries but by the speakers of the language. Also I would caution against the judgement 'sudden' if you haven't done a corpus check: the recency illusion can be a real pain. 'Morally' seems just the perfect word for this occasion --- concerned with right or proper conduct. In this case, potential discrepancies between the files that cabal 'knows' about when issuing different commands; or the sense of deceit when it 'appears' to work only for faults to appear further down the line. I would guess this is just something we have to live with if cabal can't be expected to include its own parser & dependency chaser. Documentation is always a good first step though :-) Cheers, D _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe