Omit false conds #404
Omit false conds #404
Conversation
sol
force-pushed
the
omit-false-conds
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ce9ee11 to
cb3c204
Compare
| @@ -394,6 +412,8 @@ becomes | |||
| else | |||
| ghc-options: -O0 | |||
|
|
|||
| **Note:** Conditionals with `condition: false` are omitted from the generated | |||
| `.cabal` file. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It also gives us cleaner .cabal files, which doesn't hurt.
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ at the Singapore Haskell meetup: http://typeful.net/talks/hpack | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Documentation | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Handling of `Paths_` modules | |||
|
|
|||
| Cabal generates a `Paths_` module fore every package. By default Hpack adds | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Cabal generates a `Paths_` module fore every package. By default Hpack adds | |
| Cabal generates a `Paths_` module for every package. By default Hpack adds |
| library: | ||
| when: | ||
| - condition: false | ||
| other-modules: Paths_name # substitute name with the package name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include a note here about how Cabal generates these modules names? I think it replaces hyphens with underscores. I'm not sure if it does anything else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's the only thing I'm aware of. Ideally, I would like to link to the Cabal docs on Path_, however, I couldn't find anything.
@phadej do you know if the Cabal docs cover Paths_ anywhere?
| @@ -394,6 +412,8 @@ becomes | |||
| else | |||
| ghc-options: -O0 | |||
|
|
|||
| **Note:** Conditionals with `condition: false` are omitted from the generated | |||
| `.cabal` file. | |||
| String s -> return (Cond $ T.unpack s) | ||
| Bool True -> return (Cond "true") | ||
| Bool False -> return (Cond "false") | ||
| String c -> return (CondExpression $ T.unpack c) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this means someone could avoid this new filtering behavior by explicitly passing a string. Like this:
when:
- condition: 'false'That's probably fine, and may in fact be desired as a workaround.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, exactly, that's what I thought.
Possibly, however, I'm not going to do this for now. |
|
@tfausak thanks for the review. I'm going to merge. |
No description provided.