On 21.02 16:50, Simon Marlow wrote: > I lost the argument for include files, but this is why libraries cannot > currently be specified inside source files. Back in the FFI discussion, > we didn't have Cabal, but now that we do, Cabal is the natural place to > specify these things.
Cabal is a good place, but does not handle very well optional dependencies that most programs linking against the library don't need. > I don't understand this - surely if you just put those two modules in > separate packages, then everything works? Or is it that you don't want > to do that? Think about a database library supporting e.g. mysql, postgresql, sqlite and odbc. Now it needs six packages to do this: 1) foo-common for common code that does not import any of the implementations 2) foo-mysql (depends on 1) 3) foo-pgsql (depends on 1) 4) foo-sqlit (depends on 1) 5) foo-odbc (depends on 1) 6) foo (this has a connect function which uses any of the above, thus depends on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I don't consider this very good design and in practise this is quite tedious for the library writer. - Einar Karttunen _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
