On 16 September 2016 at 16:51, Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I agree "full-fledged build system" is not a possible immediate goal.
> But an EDSL for expressing cabal projects (as they are today) would
> still be in scope of your proposal—and I thought you liked the idea
> (see quote below). Using the earlier options: option 3 is not in scope
> of this thread, but option 2 is, with the only danger that the design
> space is so big to present a challenge.
>

Yeah I like the idea of using Haskell for configs but perhaps in a
different problem space e.g. in a build spec. See the quote from my earlier
quote below, sorry for the confusion :-) Yes, maybe option 2 might work for
package specifications but sounds pretty hairy to explore for this use case
alone, unless we have other motivations.


> Quoting from Harendra Kumar's earlier mail:
>
>  If we have to express not just a package specification but a
> sophisticated build configuration, we need a real language. Expressing
> conditionals, reuse etc becomes a compromise in a purely declarative
> language.
>

-harendra
_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Reply via email to