[darcs-users] machine-readable formats (Was: the state of the adventure)
kowey at darcs.net
Fri Sep 3 08:39:42 UTC 2010
Just redirecting this to a separate mailing list thread
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:53:14 +0000, Petr Ročkai wrote:
> For point 5, I don't think we should really retain annotate --xml. My guess is
> that a simple regular language would be much better for both us and darcs-using
> tools. At least Lele (tracdarcs) agrees. The proposed format (to be
> implemented) is
> <patch-hash> | line of text
> <patch-hash> | another line
> which is much easier to parse than the XML and also avoids the validity issues
> (since we currently don't have code that'd enable us to generate actual valid
Perhaps it'd be good to try to think a bit globally about this.
* "Very very easy to parse" seems like a good feature.
And there is nothing easier to parse than simple line-based
like the above. Even JSON (with the json library) imposes a
little bit of friction...
* Human-readable (even if it's machine-oriented) could be a nice
minor feature [it lends a sort of transparency]
* Perhaps another feature would be a sort of uniformity, that all of
Darcs machine-readable outputs work the same way. Can we achieve
such a uniformity with just a regular language?
* As far as I'm concerned, "not-XML" is a feature.
I think that's just a silly knee-jerk reaction on my part, though
Is there a way to have both cake (very very easy to parse) and eating
(sufficiently expressive to do anything Darcs would reasonably want to
do with machine-readable outputs)?
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or
xmpp:kowey at jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the darcs-users