> Actually, Simon understood me perfectly. I don't see any value in the
> dotted version. There's two uses of dots in filenames:
>
> 1) As just another character - like including a ', @, $ or whatever in
> a filename.
>
> I'd disallow all of these since they're not legal Haskell module
> names so they don't fit into the hierarchical naming scheme.
>
> 2) Part of either . (current directory) or .. (parent directory).
>
> I'd disallow these because they aren't needed now we have
> hierarchical libraries.
I don't quite follow you. The issue as I see it is whether a module
A.B.C can be placed in a file A.B.C.hs, or whether it has to be named
A/B/C.hs (substitute / for the local directory separator). IIRC some
people wanted to be able to do this - I suppose it might be useful to
avoid deep/sparse directory structures.
> Note that the ghc-users discussion would have a quite different
> semantics from what Hugs has. Hugs semantics is to simultaneously
> try to interpret filenames two ways: first relative to the current
> directory, and second relative to the search path.
How is that different from adding the current directory to the search
path? (which is what GHC does by default).
> The proposed
> semantics is to either treat it as relative to the current
> directory if it contains a leading dot or to treat it as relative
> to the search path otherwise.
by "current directory" you mean "directory in which the current module
resides?" (i.e. not the same as the meaning of ".").
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Hugs-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-users
