On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Edward Z. Yang <ezy...@mit.edu> wrote:
> We were wondering if there was any reason to prefer the former > situation over the latter. One answer might be that Cabal is less keen > to have a dependency on a very GHC specific library (although the > ghc-pkg dependency is quite a fairly tightly coupled one.) > I continue to think cabal-install should use a plugin architecture. How that is relevant here is that either the Cabal library also would use plugins, or the existing Cabal library would stop pretending to be compiler-agnostic and become a Cabal-ghc plugin/library. (Or quite possibly both, depending on expected usage.) (Of course, then there is the question of how to do compiler-agnostic plugins that have a chance of working with currently nonexistent alternative compilers....) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
