IreneKnapp
commented
12 years ago Yes, certainly, the .faction->.cabal renaming is fine. I should never have checked in the .faction name and I'm not sure why I did. It's a tool I made myself, a fork of Cabal, heh, specialized for building Mac applications at a time when Duncan wasn't really able to spare the time to merge patches. (My patches had gone unmerged for an entire year, in fact...) I had to change the name so it could coexist with stock Cabal. Since I never distributed Faction since I didn't want to hurt the community by causing splintering of our core tools, it follows that I shouldn't have published the .faction file either. Oops.
I see you also fixed my repo pointer. Thanks!
And you took care to follow my code style, so I see no reason not to merge this. Going to do so immediately. :)
I am planning on binding a couple of new functions from sqlite. In order to test my changes, I wanted to have tests. So I added a test program to direct-sqlite.
The latest commit also adds a new entry point bindParameterCount + tests for it.
I also renamed the .faction file to .cabal. There must be a reason why you've decided to change it to .faction earlier, but I couldn't find any information about a packaging format called .faction so I figured that since everyone else uses cabal, maybe I will be able to convince you to start using cabal again :)
I'm using cabal-dev for all my development so everything I do is sandboxed.. This way cabal seems like a fine tool.