Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(repo): src/Parsec -> src/comp/Parsec #34

Closed

Conversation

thoughtpolice
Copy link
Contributor

This was actually already referred to as such in the COPYING file, so we
might as well clean up the src directory a bit and make that note
accurate.

This also removes the HTML copy of the Parsec license, since I believe
it's simply redundant.

This was actually already referred to as such in the COPYING file, so we
might as well clean up the `src` directory a bit and make that note
accurate.

This also removes the HTML copy of the Parsec license, since I believe
it's simply redundant.

Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <[email protected]>
@quark17
Copy link
Collaborator

quark17 commented Feb 8, 2020

Parsec is now available as a library, so we should eliminate our snapshot (which is old) and update to use the current library. I'd prefer to do that instead of these changes.

@bpfoley
Copy link
Collaborator

bpfoley commented Feb 8, 2020

...and in fact I'm working on that at the moment. I just need to figure out the parsec 2 -> 3 API changes :)

@thoughtpolice
Copy link
Contributor Author

thoughtpolice commented Feb 8, 2020

That's totally fine with me! Unfortunately I can't help remembering the with the Parsec 3 API changes, it happened so long ago my foggy mind has forgotten it all. :)

I'd be more than happy to also help @bpfoley with any "Haskell modernization" attempts like this, e.g. re-using libraries like parsec where appropriate, and cleaning things up to use modern more modern features and libraries. Of course, for now, I'm working on packaging concerns, but this is also a very fruitful thing to do.

However, it'd be useful to think about what the toolchain/dependency requirements are; some dependencies will invariably imply limits on the toolchain and that's probably fine, it's just nice having everyone on the same page.

That should probably happen in a separate issue though. I'll close this one instead!

@bpfoley
Copy link
Collaborator

bpfoley commented Feb 8, 2020

Thank you, I appreciate it. See also #37

@thoughtpolice thoughtpolice deleted the aseipp/mv-parsec branch July 20, 2024 23:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants