On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:06:23 +0200, Hendrik Tews <t...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
> Tom Prince <tom.pri...@ualberta.net> writes:
>> Does anybody use -I ... -as ... ?? Does anybody has an opinion
>> about whether Coq Proof General should support -I ... -as ... ??
> I suspect that it isn't worth it. If there are no subdirectories,
> -R ... ... and -I ... -as ... have the same effect.
> Sure, but if there are subdirectories, the effect is different.
Unless somebody else chimes in I would say we shouldn't bother.
If somebody has hierarchy of coq directories, to give an explicit name
to one, I can't imagine that they wouldn't want the directory hierarchy
reflected in the coq hierarchy. If somebody needs it later, we can
always add it.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:01:35 +0200, Hendrik Tews <t...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
> I am also in favor of releasing this patch, as it doeas not seem ro
> break the users old configuration settings using coq-prog-args (does
> No, as long as coq-compile-before-require is nil.
It actually only affected me (and seemed to work) with
coq-compile-before-require was t.
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list