Ok, probably not worth the effort :-) Thanks for the information about JSMin-style comments, I was not aware of that. I guess the downside is that IDEs/editors will complain, but that's a choice we can make.
Thinking out loud - if we generate the JSON files from another format before passing them over to the feature launcher/analyser then we would be safe. But that's also not very easy I guess. Thanks, Robert On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 17:36 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > It would be a significant effort, basically rewriting everything > including all modules, extensions and tooling. > > Not sure if that is really worth the effort. > > Repoinit is a little bit of a pain, I agree. But I don't think this > minor use case warrants such a dramatic change. > > For comments, you can use JSmin style comments (like mentioned on > jsonnet), so I don't consider this an issue. > > Regards > Carsten > > On 08.05.2020 17:28, Robert Munteanu wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I keep thinking about how the feature files would look like in a > > different format. The main driver is the way repoinit statements > > look > > at the moment. Comments are also a bit awkward, even though > > possible in > > JSON. > > > > I was looking at Jsonnet [1], which is a superset of JSON with lots > > of > > bells and whistles, including comments and multiline strings. > > > > But irrespective of format - Jsonnet, YAML, or something else - > > what > > would it take to add another input format to the feature model? Is > > it > > something can be easily plugged in or would it require a > > significant > > rewrite? > > > > Thanks, > > Robert > > > > > > [1]: https://jsonnet.org/ > >
