On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:03:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If, say, a library consists of the top-level module "A.B.C" and > a bunch of internal components "A.B.C.M1", "A.B.C.M2", etc., > I can't see why I should not be allowed to put them all in one > directory.
I think that's the selling point for me. I'm now convinced it's a good idea. That being said, I wrote that message because I've been struggling with obscure build tools for the last few days, which work fine until they break -- then you're in for hours of pain. So I prefer to stick to fairly obvious, explicit ways of doing something, and I guess I saw Simon's second suggestion as another way to have more pain-inducing bizarre build schemes via make. (Of course, this relies on the developer wanting to invent bizarre Makefiles, but I've seen _plenty_ of Makefiles where I can't even _begin_ to work out how they work. That's my fear.) > Another reason is how it interacts with tools like "Make". I've > already mentioned the VPATH mechanism. It's all bad once that VPATH word gets mentioned ;). -- #ozone/algorithm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - trust.in.love.to.save _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
