On 9/3/2010 18:43, Petr Rockai wrote:
I guess the only reasonable way to YAML [(a, b)] is a list of singleton
maps, right... or is a list of two-element lists better? (As opposed to
[a -> b] which is an actual YAML map.)
Maybe the list of two-element lists *is* preferable? There is a subtle
order sometimes implied by summary information, anyway. One possible
YAML example:
- [A, file1.txt]
- [M, file1.txt]
- [Move, file1.txt, file2.txt]
- [M, file2.txt]
I've got a gut feeling that I'd rather see darcs properly escape things in a
clear character-oriented format for its machine-readable output than deal with
verbatim output, anyway.
Yes, but that's just because you are a python programmer and not a perl
programmer (or a shell programmer, or an awk programmer). I suspect
emacs-lispers will prefer the regular language output too.
True to a point, but I've still seen almost my fair share of old shell
scripts that have to be rejiggered due to subtle changes in some other
tool's output.
Also, Python is as fine and qualified as a shell scripting language as
perl is (Python even has -e), if not better (for being more readable :P).
# One liner to convert annotate YAML to JSON
darcs ann --yaml|python -e "import json, sys, yaml; print
json.dumps(yaml.load(sys.stdin))"
PS: We still need a YAML library. Shame that all that are on Hackage are
essentially undocumented. I'll just hope that someone will be able to
implement the above two yaml :: a -> ByteString functions for me. They
could actually be a (-> Handle) -> IO () if that helps any.
Hmm...
--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
