Yup. It's a known problem in the Haskell community that folks wish to eventually move away from.
On Friday, December 13, 2013, György Andrasek wrote: > On 12/13/2013 12:53 PM, spir wrote: > >> I think this is a good possibility, make the module/crate organisation >> mirror the filesystem (or the opposite): >> * 1 module = 1 file of code >> * 1 package = 1 dir >> This may be limiting at times, possibility one may want multi-module >> files and multi-file modules. But this forms a good, simple base >> (anyway, we have mini & maxi modules & code files, whatever the logical >> & physical organisations). Another point is that very often we have >> package (I mean crate ;-) sub-dirs which are not packages themselves. >> Then, as usual, we'd have a special code file representing a package at >> its top dir (the same name as the package, or a magic name like 'main'). >> >> Then, module sharing is code file sharing, and package management is dir >> management (trivially .zip-ed or .tar.gz-ed, and then the name "package" >> is here for something). >> > > Haskell does that, it's really painful. You have to create one extra > boilerplate file per folder for public re-exports, and Haskell libraries > share a global namespace so typically your actual code starts 3-4 > directories deep. > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
