[Swift-devel] Issues to resolve for the 0.96 config mechanism

[Tim Armstrong]

FYI I don't think we ever were set on having CPP as part of stc by default.
There are reasons not to (aside from the usual debates about misuse of
macros, it means that you're limited in what you can do syntactically, for
example multiline strings don't work properly).

It's still enabled by default but it's not actually needed.  I think we
actually made a preliminary decision to move away form it:
https://code.google.com/p/exm-issues/issues/detail?id=267.

- Tim


On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Sun, 2014-07-13 at 11:01 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
> > - default property file names have changed: swift.properties vs
> swift.config
>
> On purpose, to avoid left-overs from being confusing.
>
> >
> > - the search path implemented by 0.95 is (I suspect) not yet carried
> > forward here, and that needs discussion. My inclination is that it
> > should be.
> >
> > - the include mechanism is new.   I think its nice and likely is very
> > useful, but I wonder how it will interact with or supplement the
> > property search path.
>
> We discussed this a few days ago. We had repeated issues with magically
> loaded files from strange locations that the users took a long time to
> find and fix. The solution that I saw in 0.95 was even more search
> locations, which I think was not right.
>
> So the philosophy in trunk is "either it stares at you or it isn't
> there". And includes do this in a way that doesn't sacrifice
> convenience.
>
> > Did that come from the underlying config classes used, or was that done
> > from scratch? We should also consider hos this works with respect to the
> > use of cpp in stc, if we see ourselves heading to the use of stc as a
> > universal front end for the Swift toolchain.
> >
> > - as we discussed before, but never resolved - we should decide if the
> > documented/encouraged format will have colon separators and quoted
> > string values.
>
> You need to quote values that have special characters, such as "-" or
> spaces, etc. Having to think about whether a particular string or not
> does contain "special characters" to see if you are going to write
> quotes or not is an effort that I do not think we should push the users
> into. But it's a choice.
>
> >  I prefer the visually simpler format without either, and
> > I think 0.95 also allows an optional "=" separator as in standard
> > properties files. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.properties is a nice
> > summary, and says " Several formats are possible for each line,
> > including key=value, key = value, key:value, and key value.")
>
> Give it some time :)
> You might like it. I know it's not exactly the 0.95 config. It's not a
> perfect world.
>
> >
> > I think we can work all these issues out as we go.  I'm eager to test
> > trunk in its current state before we address any of the issues above.
> > Lets concentrate first on manual testing and on getting the property
> > names stabilized and the more important semantic changes.
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > Also, we need to work out issues in application location specifications
> > that were started but not yet fully developed in the 0.95 effort.  David
> > and I discussed these, and we need to capture and post the
> > recommendations that were still in progress for this.
>
> Yes, please! I really wished I had seen a discussion on the 0.95 config
> before it went into code.
>
> Mihael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swift-devel mailing list
> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> https://lists.ci.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/swift-devel/attachments/20140713/3b5e3c3d/attachment.html>