Just redirecting this to a separate mailing list thread On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:53:14 +0000, Petr Ročkai wrote: > For point 5, I don't think we should really retain annotate --xml. My guess is > that a simple regular language would be much better for both us and > darcs-using > tools. At least Lele (tracdarcs) agrees. The proposed format (to be > implemented) is > > <patch-hash> | line of text > <patch-hash> | another line > ... > > which is much easier to parse than the XML and also avoids the validity issues > (since we currently don't have code that'd enable us to generate actual valid > XML).
Perhaps it'd be good to try to think a bit globally about this. * "Very very easy to parse" seems like a good feature. And there is nothing easier to parse than simple line-based like the above. Even JSON (with the json library) imposes a little bit of friction... * Human-readable (even if it's machine-oriented) could be a nice minor feature [it lends a sort of transparency] * Perhaps another feature would be a sort of uniformity, that all of Darcs machine-readable outputs work the same way. Can we achieve such a uniformity with just a regular language? * As far as I'm concerned, "not-XML" is a feature. I think that's just a silly knee-jerk reaction on my part, though Is there a way to have both cake (very very easy to parse) and eating (sufficiently expressive to do anything Darcs would reasonably want to do with machine-readable outputs)? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or xmpp:ko...@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
