RE: Summary of current change suggestions

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,

> 
> > >    * specifying libraries in the source isn't the right way to
> > >      go.  Library names change independently of APIs, and can be
> > >      platform-specific.
> > 
> > I like the high level goal this is heading towards and was in complete
> > agreement with implementing it in rules like this until....  
> > I realised that
> > all that Hugs sees is the source (i.e., there's no makefile 
> > to put extra
> > compilation info into) - so if it ain't in the source, where is it?
> > 
> > But I like the rule...
> 
> Well... there's no reason why hugs couldn't use something like GHC's
> packages.  In fact, it could use the scheme largely unchanged; but
> perhaps the package spec should be extended to include a path to source
> files (the alternative is to overload the path to the interface files
> and put the sources in the same place if you want to share a package
> between Hugs & GHC).

I think, a path to source files would be a good idea.

Cheers,
Manuel

_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi