You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, package components need to be qualified by PKG:test:TEST_NAME / etc. However, when I was poking around the Cabal code I noticed that having components with different types but the same name is no longer supported. Since it will be unambiguous, we should allow PKG:TEST_NAME. One question is if you write PKG:test, to refer to a component called test should that be allowed? I think so.
I actually think it should have been this way even if Cabal did not enforce this constraint. If it is aliased, just build both.
Similarly, I would like to support :component-name syntax. This would build all the components in the local packages matching that name. We could even consider glob patterns, but that is getting a little wild maybe.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, package components need to be qualified by
PKG:test:TEST_NAME
/ etc. However, when I was poking around theCabal
code I noticed that having components with different types but the same name is no longer supported. Since it will be unambiguous, we should allowPKG:TEST_NAME
. One question is if you writePKG:test
, to refer to a component calledtest
should that be allowed? I think so.I actually think it should have been this way even if Cabal did not enforce this constraint. If it is aliased, just build both.
Similarly, I would like to support
:component-name
syntax. This would build all the components in the local packages matching that name. We could even consider glob patterns, but that is getting a little wild maybe.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: