From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@ri...> - 2001-11-10 08:31:51
|
Clark C . Evans wrote: > | Hmmm. How do we do 3 empty maps in a row? > | > | --- !map > | --- !map > | --- !map > > Yep. The wording isn't explicit, but what was intended > was banning two adjacent --- items that didn't have an > explicit type and/or indicator. OK. I'll try and see how this works with the productions... > | > 6. Base64 > | > > | > a) We agreed that !base64 is an explicit type. > | > And for now we've agreed to include a > | > preceding [= and trailing ] on base64 values. > | > | Oren, please explain where the '[=' syntax comes from. Three reasons: - Having a unique, short prefix for a potentially large implicit type. - Allowing other implicit types to start with '[' if we need to. - Symmetry [=...=]. I don't see it costs us anything. > | > a) We've agreed to introduce a new style, > | > denoted by \- which explicitly denotes > | > a flow (and not quoted) next-line scalar. > | > | It should be noted in the spec that this is only needed when > | the scalar begins with a single or double quote character. > > We may want to consider letting implicit scalars > work with the next line scalar... that would be > consistent with allowing implicit scalars as keys > (and probably make the productions easier). The current wording does not distinguish between next-line and in-line scalars as far as implicit typing is concerned. I don't see a reason to change it. Hmmm - this means \- scalars are still implicitly typed (unless starting with an alpha), right? The '-' just forces treating the value as unquoted, period. That seems simpler. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |
From: Clark C . E. <cc...@cl...> - 2001-11-10 15:10:21
|
| > We may want to consider letting implicit scalars | > work with the next line scalar... that would be | > consistent with allowing implicit scalars as keys | > (and probably make the productions easier). | | The current wording does not distinguish between | next-line and in-line scalars as far as implicit | typing is concerned. I don't see a reason to | change it. Ok. | Hmmm - this means \- scalars are still implicitly | typed (unless starting with an alpha), right? | The '-' just forces treating the value as | unquoted, period. That seems simpler. I'd like the trailing - to remove all "magic", both implicit types and quoting. Best, Clark |
From: Brian I. <in...@tt...> - 2001-11-10 17:33:48
|
On 10/11/01 10:22 -0500, Clark C . Evans wrote: > | > We may want to consider letting implicit scalars > | > work with the next line scalar... that would be > | > consistent with allowing implicit scalars as keys > | > (and probably make the productions easier). > | > | The current wording does not distinguish between > | next-line and in-line scalars as far as implicit > | typing is concerned. I don't see a reason to > | change it. > > Ok. > > | Hmmm - this means \- scalars are still implicitly > | typed (unless starting with an alpha), right? > | The '-' just forces treating the value as > | unquoted, period. That seems simpler. > > I'd like the trailing - to remove all "magic", > both implicit types and quoting. Wow. That seems really nice. Might as well get a little extra free milage out this. I like it. Oren? Cheers, Brian |