I agree with most of Alexander's many thoughtful comments about Don's list of potential additions to HP. But I disagree about pandoc.
Alexander Dunlap wrote: > No. Pandoc is too actively developed to go into the HP. It depends on the nature of the development. If the API is currently very unstable and is expected to stabilize soon, then wait a little bit. Otherwise, that is no excuse to exclude something worthwhile. Choose a well-tested numbered version and include it. Later, if we want to upgrade, just follow the usual deprecation-upgrade process. Umm - we do have a well-defined deprecation-upgrade process, don't we? > It's also much more of an end-user application than > a "standard library" pandoc provides an extensive library, and also a command-line app. Is it a policy that in such a case, we require the command-line app to be split off into a separate package before we can include it? I'm not sure that's so important, but if so, it should not be hard to do that for pandoc. > its applications are not general > enough to be included in the standard > distribution. Text with markup is used in some way for almost every application. This library provides tools to convert between a wide variety of markup formats. Sounds pretty general to me. Other "batteries included" platforms contain various tools for processing markup that are far less general than pandoc. This is a place where Haskell can shine. So yes, pandoc should definitely be included in the platform. All that said, though, I will certainly agree that it is not currently in the top 5. Regards, Yitz _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe