toml or yaml or something else about fpm HOT 10 CLOSED

I am now in favor of toml as well. I like the idea of following the Rust packaging model.

from fpm.

I'm going to go ahead and close this issue, since I think we've decided to stick with toml. Plus we're now moving forward in that direction.

from fpm.

Both toml and yaml look good and have sufficient capability. Yaml is personally slightly prettier to me.

Which has a more mature parser in Haskell? Let's go with that one.

I recommend against json for configuration files (even though I use it a lot) because it doesn't allow comments. This would make it harder to work with them in development and testing when you want to quickly try out different values. It's also a bit more noisy (verbose) than either toml or yaml.

xml burns my eyes.

from fpm.

There are parsers for both that seem pretty mature. I just think yaml is more naturally represented as a simple/common data structure, so it is easier to work with once it's parsed.

@certik , do you have a vote?

from fpm.

from fpm.

from fpm.

@certik , that sounds reasonable. I put together an example of what an fpm.yaml file would look like (#46). Could you try converting that to toml so we can see what that would look like?

from fpm.

@everythingfunctional see my comments at #46: #46 (comment) how it would look like in YAML and TOML. Let me know your thoughts.

from fpm.

I think the TOML looks fine. I'll start trying to put together the logic to pull in the dependencies, and compile them in the right order based on the fpm.toml file.

from fpm.

@everythingfunctional perfect. Let me know once you have something, and I'll test it.

from fpm.