[darcs-users] darcs patch: Partially resolve issue1376: merge darcsman.hs into da...

Trent W. Buck trentbuck at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 13:26:24 UTC 2009


On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:44:32AM +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 21:27:40 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > > Thanks Trent, here's some quick review. Background:
> > > http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1376 says
> 
> > > I'm sympathetic to building things right into the darcs binary when it
> > > eases building, deployment, and is not unuseful for users. Eg I'd like
> > > to build in some form of test runner. Your change indeed looks simple
> > > and should do what you want. I'm in favour of things that work for now
> > > even if not perfect.
> > >
> > > I'm uncomfortable with "darcs help manual" though because it's
> > > strictly to make cabal packaging easier
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> Thanks too to Simon for the review (and attention to principles).
> I guess "darcs help manual" couldn't hurt.  I hope we're not setting
> some sort of crazy precedent.

What I'd eventually like to have is a --format flag, such that you can
say

    darcs help [COMMAND|manual] [--format nroff|tex]

And get plain text, or some other format, of the same information.
"help manual" essentially gives you everything, whereas COMMAND only
gives a particular section.

It also occurred to me that you could replace --darcs-2 with --format
darcs-2, and similar for other commands.  I don't know if that's a
good thing.

The main reason I haven't implemented this idea yet is because the way
Darcs handles options is terribly confusing and convoluted (at least
it seems so to me).  I was going to suggest using getopt, but it turns
out we already ARE using getopt...


More information about the darcs-users mailing list