Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com">ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

I am pleased to announce a new release of the graphviz package for<br>
Haskell, which provides bindings to the GraphViz [1] suite of tools.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Nice work!<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">As the way of defining an attribute for a specific grouping of<br>

</blockquote></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
nodes/edges/subgraphs is to have them all listed after the attribute<br>
definition (whereas those beforehand do not have this attribute), the<br>
imperative nature of the Dot language does not allow us to split these<br>
statements up as we currently do.<br>
<br>
[3] <a href="http://graphviz.org/doc/info/lang.html" target="_blank">http://graphviz.org/doc/info/lang.html</a><br>
<br>
As such, I&#39;m asking which of the following two choices people would<br>
prefer:<br>
  1. Follow upstream so that it can fully parse a Dot graph<br>
  2. Keep it as it is, so that it is possible to consider all edges,<br>
     etc. easily.</blockquote><div><br>I would vote for the second one since I think that is the most widely used feature of this package. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Zsolt<br></div></div>