On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 12:11:04PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Colin Watson wrote: > > Since you wrote your original patch, we have extensible metadata in > > the form of .summary files. I think it would be reasonable to use > > those rather than having a separate file, which will also give you > > the benefit of the I/O functions already existing. However, somebody > > will have to work out the field format: hashes as field values > > aren't currently supported, although there's no reason why they > > couldn't be made to work. Perhaps a one-space indent followed by > > escaped-key+whitespace+escaped-value or something like that would be > > OK. > > My serialization stuff(which isn't in use) supported lol(lists of > lists(and hashes)) in RFC822 format. It might be better to use that, > then we can be more generic(it required a type/format descriptor for > vars, to say how to deserialize them).
Where can I see this code? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
