name of the crate
Stargateur opened this issue · comments
yeah maybe too late ?
I would have name it nom_abnf, cause, it's about nom and abnf and I dislike - in rust crate name cause it doesn't match code use abnf_core.
abnf is already take and anyway I really thing nom key word should appear in a crate for nom framework like https://crates.io/search?page=1&per_page=10&q=nom
Possible action, use nom_abnf now and give up abnf-core ?
I would have name it nom_abnf, cause, it's about nom and abnf and
Ideally, nom is not exposed in the public API, but only via a feature flag maybe for easy composition with other nom crates?
I dislike - in rust crate name cause it doesn't match code use abnf_core.
Agree. However, this is so common that I do not mind.
abnf is already take and
Yes, by me! :-) We could also merge abnf-core with abnf and expose a minimal "abnf-core" via a feature flag in the abnf crate.
anyway I really thing nom key word should appear in a crate for nom framework like https://crates.io/search?page=1&per_page=10&q=nom
Will add that keyword 👍
Possible action, use nom_abnf now and give up abnf-core?
Disagee, see comment above for rational.
By the way, the "-core" part reflects that this crate is about ABNFs "Core Rules".
Yes, by me! :-) We could also merge abnf-core with abnf and expose a minimal "abnf-core" via a feature flag in the abnf crate.
No, that perfect as a separate crate. my only complain was missing nom but a nom-abnf-core is long.
I believe your abnf crate is perfectly named for what it does, I just think this should be name nom_abnf.
By the way, the "-core" part reflects that this crate is about ABNFs "Core Rules".
Meh, yeah that the core rule of all ABNF grammar, but I think it's implicit the nom_abnf is for core rule of abnf. but yeah you get a point and again nom_abnf_core is long.
The keyword should be fine.
I think it should be okay to merge abnf-core with abnf. The only dependants of abnf-core are crates created by me (https://crates.io/crates/abnf-core/reverse_dependencies).
Which downsides do you see with the merge?
for example, I did a SIP parser, following the ABNF of SIP, I end up coding your crate to have core rule just utils, I always have in mind to make an abnf crate like this and just find this today, so in my parser I don't need at all a parsing crate that parse a ABNF grammar, I need the rule for make my SIP parser. And so I would not at all think to import abnf, A quick read of the description would get me away from it.
But I understand better why you name this abnf-core cause for you it's something other could use but it's link to your abnf crate
You said that
A quick read of the description would get me away from it.
and I find that a compelling argument against a merge right now. Still, I am not sure if this could be addressed by improving the README and exposing multiple features such as ["full", "abnf", "core-rules", " nom"] in the abnf crate.
But let's keep that name for now.
anyway I really thing nom key word should appear in a crate for nom framework like https://crates.io/search?page=1&per_page=10&q=nom
Will add that keyword +1
Ah. I think I misunderstood you. The "nom" keyword is already there (see https://github.com/duesee/abnf-core/blob/main/Cargo.toml#L11)
Will close #9 for now.