Re: GHC's CPP and Cabal's unlit

31 Jan 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  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.

Duncan