[Haskell-cafe] Package metadata format - notes from discussion
harendra.kumar at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 17:05:33 UTC 2016
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?
On 2 November 2016 at 21:46, Peter Simons <simons at nospf.cryp.to> wrote:
> Hi Harendra,
> > It might help if the [Cabal] parser is modularized and detached from
> > the cabal tool itself so that it can be used independently by any
> > other tools wishing to do so.
> I'm not quite sure how to interpret that statement. The parser for the
> Cabal format is quite modular and re-usable already and has been available
> in the Cabal library for years:
> Am I missing something?
> Best regards,
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe