I hate new DUB config format

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d]

Am 26.11.2015 um 18:16 schrieb B.Basile:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 16:10:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> [...]
>> The only valid reason for an IDE to directly parse the package
>> description is basically if it wants to provide a custom UI for
>> editing it. If the IDE is written in D, it can easily use DUB as a
>> library and not only get the package description in a common format,
>> but also nicely statically typed. If not, the conversion feature that
>> was planned for the next version would trivially solve that, too.
>
> No, there's also a problem of latency caused by dependency checking (and
> if there are any).

But that won't happen in case of the conversion feature (and neither 
when parsing it using the DUB library). My point is that everything 
apart from a simple package recipe editor UI basically has to 
reimplement large parts of DUB, which makes it rather impractical.