On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 03:32:52AM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:28 +0000, Ross Paterson wrote: > > In that sense, there's only one value (Custom), but defaultMain is > > common, and a reasonable number of packages use > > > > main = defaultMainWithHooks defaultUserHooks > > which (bizarrely) is not the same as defaultMainWithHooks > defaultUserHooks, though it really should be.
Fair enough, but for this discussion the point is that whatever they're called, there are two of them (three if you count Make). > Oh you mean that since people would want to be backwards compatible that > they would include a simple Setup.hs and then we loose the advantage of > not having to compile Setup.hs and thus having an extra field to say to > use simple even if there is a Setup.hs present is a benefit? > > Yes, it is a benefit but it seems rather marginal to me. Remember that > we can't always avoid building a trivial Setup.hs anyway, since in the > case that cabal-setup was built with Cabal-x.y and the .cabal requests > cabal version x.y+1 then cabal-setup needs to build Setup.hs with the > later version of the Cabal lib and use that. Yes we do, and even if Setup.hs wasn't present. But this will be rare, especially if one keeps cabal-setup up to date. The idea is to get the benefit most of the time, though not all. _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
