On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones < > simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> To me it seems simple and obvious! Why are we going round the houses to >> do something so simple? > > > So cabal can maintain its conceit that it supports more than just ghc. > I don't understand this as an argument against the ghc-db library, which to me also seems the simple and obvious solution. Having a ghc-db library will mean one of two options: 1. The *ghc-db* is GHC-specific and will be used by the GHC specific wrappers in Cabal: doesn't cabal already deals with each compiler differently? 2. The ghc-db is really *hs-db* and a library contract that can be reused by all haskell compilers (i.e. part of The Haskell Cabal) In both cases, the assumption is that ghc-db/hs-db should have a stable API. Now, choosing option (1) doesn't eliminate option (2). When and if there is a broad agreement across all compilers, ghc-db could become hs-db and be incorporate into The Haskell Cabal. > > -- > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
