Re: [Haskell-cafe] Shake, Shelly, FilePath
Shelly is using system-filepath which was created as an improvement over using a simple String. For a build system in which you name all your files you may not care about the upside. If you want a version of Shelly that uses String you can try Shellish, its predecessor. Otherwise the shim should be written for Shake to use system-filepath. Greg Weber ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Shake, Shelly, FilePath
I began converting an unwieldy Makefile into a Haskell program via Shake, hoping that I could increase both its readability and modularity. The modularity has increased greatly, and I have found it exhilarating how much more I can express about my dependencies. However, readability has suffered. I quickly found that heavy shell interaction became unwieldy and I came out with code that was much more difficult to scan with my eyes then what I had in my Makefile. I attempted to fix this by using the Shelly library for my shell interactions, and was well pleased until I attempted to compile and discovered Shelly.FilePath is NOT Prelude.FilePath. Now I am left sprinkling coercions all over the place and am again shaking my head at how difficult to scan my code has become. I have been considering writing a shim over Shelly, but the prospect makes me uneasy. Has anyone else walked down this path before, and if so what did you bring away from the experience? I find this situation such a shame, as all my other experiences with both libraries have been quite wonderful. - Eli ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Shake, Shelly, FilePath
On 9 March 2013 11:31, Eli Frey eli.lee.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I began converting an unwieldy Makefile into a Haskell program via Shake,
hoping that I could increase both its readability and modularity. The
modularity has increased greatly, and I have found it exhilarating how much
more I can express about my dependencies. However, readability has
suffered.
I quickly found that heavy shell interaction became unwieldy and I came out
with code that was much more difficult to scan with my eyes then what I had
in my Makefile.
I attempted to fix this by using the Shelly library for my shell
interactions, and was well pleased until I attempted to compile and
discovered Shelly.FilePath is NOT Prelude.FilePath. Now I am left
sprinkling coercions all over the place and am again shaking my head at how
difficult to scan my code has become.
But it _is_ an instance of IsString, so can't you just use {-#
LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-} and thus get the behaviour you're after
(unless you need System.FilePath for something else)?
I have been considering writing a shim over Shelly, but the prospect makes
me uneasy.
Has anyone else walked down this path before, and if so what did you bring
away from the experience? I find this situation such a shame, as all my
other experiences with both libraries have been quite wonderful.
- Eli
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
