GHC's CPP and Cabal's unlit
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jan 31 18:09:21 EST 2008
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 17:41 +0000, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:41:59PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:37 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:
> > > On 31/01/2008, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > OK. Ian voted for '.' as empty line, so I went with that as it was the
> > > only comment, and was a positive one.
> > >
> > > What exactly are you not happy with? Is it the unsightliness of the
> > > periods in comments, or something else?
> > Partly. I've never liked that convention. It seems quite unnecessary
> > in .cabal files.
> With the old Cabal syntax, blank lines separated stanzas, so this was
> the only way to get blank lines in fields, notably Description. I'm
> not sure whether it's still needed with the new syntax.
It's not essential anymore though the parser would have to be modified
slightly to make them optional. We'd have to continue treating '.' lines
as blank for the sake of old packages.
More information about the cabal-devel