<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
One impression I've gotten (although I have not looked into this
closely) is that the API for cabal-the-library does not seem to be
very stable. From looking at the version history of the
standalone-haddock tool, it appears that it has to change frequently
for new versions of cabal, and only supports one version of cabal at
a time. (And it currently isn't up-to-date with the latest cabal.)
This makes it difficult to use, because my cabal is probably too old
or too new.<br>
<br>
--Patrick<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/2/16 10:05 AM, Harendra Kumar
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPW+kkZNETTvfOJd4pDu3qzJcd1h-b5Qbu6SSd-bg4GdkdL7dQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Peter,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
My point was to make it easier for any new tool writers to
choose the same format over something entirely new, there are
some examples in the notes. I have not investigated it in detail
but there must be some reason why the cabal format is not being
adopted or is not likely to be adopted by new tools describing
package metadata; I was thinking the format being seen as
tightly attached to cabal and not usable in general might be one
reason. Is it likely to be seen as an independent format if it
has a spec describing it and an independent parsing library? Or
is it some entirely different reason altogether? Or maybe its
not worth caring about whether all tools use the same language
for metadata, I might be the only one?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-harendra<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 2 November 2016 at 21:46, Peter
Simons <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:simons@nospf.cryp.to" target="_blank">simons@nospf.cryp.to</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Harendra,<br>
<br>
> It might help if the [Cabal] parser is modularized
and detached from<br>
<span class="gmail-"> > the cabal tool itself so that
it can be used independently by any<br>
> other tools wishing to do so.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm not quite sure how to interpret that
statement. The parser for the<br>
Cabal format is quite modular and re-usable already and
has been available<br>
in the Cabal library for years:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.24.0.0/docs/Distribution-PackageDescription-Parse.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hackage.haskell.org/<wbr>package/Cabal-1.24.0.0/docs/<wbr>Distribution-<wbr>PackageDescription-Parse.html</a><br>
<br>
Am I missing something?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-<wbr>cafe</a><br>
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed
to post.</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a>
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>