Peter,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?
-harendra
On 2 November 2016 at 21:46, Peter Simons <simons@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:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.24.0.0/docs/ Distribution- PackageDescription-Parse.html
Am I missing something?
Best regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell- cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.