On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Henrik Nilsson wrote: > To re-iterate, my basic argument was that the software developer should > have as much freedom as possible to organize his or her *sources* into > an appropriate hierarchy, because the developer is the only one who has > a full overview of all the various tools involved in a complicated project, > their specific requirements and idiosyncrasies, compatibility issues between > different compilers/interpreters, compatibility issues between different OS > platforms, and so on, or simply wishing to apply what he or she judges to be > sound judgement when it comes to organizing the sources. > > Personally, I really dislike being forced to spread out what I regard > as related sources over more than one directory just to assign the right > "name" to the individual source files. I find it inconvenient and unfamiliar, > and I know I'm not alone in this. Maybe I should point out that I'm > typically not working with simple Haskell-only sources, but with a rather > more complicated environment involving more than one language and various > pre-processors. Perhaps this makes matters worse.
OK, you're arguing for a much more flexible relationship between filenames and module names. But is the very limited form offered by Hugs (A.B.C -> A.B.C.hs or A/B/C.hs) of any use as is? Do you use it? _______________________________________________ Hugs-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-users
