Niklas Broberg wrote:
So here are some options:
1. the proposal as it is now, keeping exposed/hidden state in the
package database, don't support "available"
2. Add support for "available". Cons: yet more complexity!
3. Drop the notion of exposed/hidden, all packages are "available".
(except for base?). Cons: lots more typing, very
non-backwards-compatible, still have to list dependencies in
.cabal files.
anyone have any more suggestions? Is there any way to simplify? I
rather feel this design is getting a little unwieldy.
Maybe a dumb question, but why not support only exposed and available?
Why have hidden modules that cannot be used, even when the programmer
explicitly asks for them?
The main reason for wanting hidden is so that we can be sure that the
build-depends field of a Cabal package is exhaustive; we currently do
this by making all packages not listed in build-depends hidden.
Outside of Cabal, I don't see a reason for wanting hidden.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
