Skip to content

Conversation

@flip111
Copy link

@flip111 flip111 commented Dec 27, 2018

add info about extensions

add info about extensions
@andreasabel
Copy link
Contributor

Should this simple PR be merged or closed?

@sol
Copy link
Owner

sol commented Nov 12, 2020

I'm not sure. I think it is a good thing if the Hpack docs are useful on their own. On the other hand, for stuff that is almost literally mapped to .cabal it might make sense to reference the Cabal docs instead. Thoughts?

Base automatically changed from master to main January 19, 2021 21:43
@andreasabel
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure. I think it is a good thing if the Hpack docs are useful on their own. On the other hand, for stuff that is almost literally mapped to .cabal it might make sense to reference the Cabal docs instead. Thoughts?

Certainly.
But the doc in this PR is better than no doc, so it can't hurt.

@mpilgrem
Copy link
Collaborator

Problems with a large number of links to the Cabal package description specification are (a) linking to which version of the specification? And (b) the 'cost' of maintaining the links.

Rather that treat these two Hpack keys differently from all the others, I think a better solution is:

  • provide one introductory link in this document to the Cabal User Guide, and point the reader to the relevant part; and
  • state expressly that a . in the Cabal column means that the Hpack key corresponds directly to a field in the Cabal package description of the same name.

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.

4 participants