On 03/15/2013 04:33 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 05:19 +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote: >> On 03/14/2013 11:01 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote: >>> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 11:15 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bardur Arantsson >>>> <s...@scientician.net>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/14/2013 03:53 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote: >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Why did I choose parsec? Practicality dictates that I can only use >>>>>> things in the core libraries, and the nearest thing we have to that is >>>>>> the parser lib that is in the HP. I tried to use happy but I could not >>>>>> construct a grammar/lexer combo to handle the layout (also, happy is not >>>>>> exactly known for its great error messages). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just thinking out loud here, but what about ditching the current format >>>>> for something that's simpler to parse/generate? Like, say, JSON? >>> >>> Of course .cabal files are mainly written by humans, not machines, so we >>> should optimise for them. >> >> I though we were mostly talking about InstalledPackageInfo. That could >> be in $EASILY_PARSEABLE_FORMAT without really breaking anything, right? > > In principle it could be any format. But it is a format specified in the > Cabal spec, and shared between all the Haskell implementations. Unless > there's a compelling reason to change all that, I'd rather not. >
Not having GHC core depend on parsec(*) sounds like a compelling reason to me...? (*) And the potential ensuing Cabal hell when a package depends on anything in GHC.*. _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
