I hate new DUB config format

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d]

Am 26.11.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Bruno Medeiros:
> On 26/11/2015 16:10, 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.
>
> This is isn't true. There are things that an IDE might want to do, that
> "dub describe" doesn't currently account for. The DDT IDE is an example
> of that, and I've raised these issues before with DUB. For example:
>
>   * dub describe fails if dependency resolution fails, yet there is
> still partial information about the DUB package that would be of use.

Good point. I'd say "dub describe" should simply fail gracefully and 
just skip the "targets" and "dependencies" fields.

>   * dub describe does not provide information for all build
> configurations, only the default one. As such the IDE has to parse the
> json to find out all available configurations itself. (This is used in
> the DDT IDE to show a list of "Build Targets" in the UI)

You can do "dub --print-builds --print-configs --annotate"

But it's currently uselessly bound to the build/run commands. Should 
definitely be part of "dub describe"'s output.