From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@ri...> - 2002-09-28 15:57:17
|
sh...@zi... [mailto:sh...@zi...] wrote: > # 33.3% valid YAML of the future?? No need to get sarcastic. The following is invalid and nobody ever suggested otherwise: > Unindented scalar: | > Indentation is the > number of spaces. Period. > --- > # YAML as already implemented 3 times A good point. But we are talking about a minor change, and we are at a "Last Call" phase, not a "Frozen Spec" stage. Note that state 1 at least is only a relaxation and all existing YAML files would stay legal (I bet that state 2 also allows all actual YAML files in use but in theory there are documents it would make illegal). I guess this gives an extra weight to Brian's and Why's position (less of a change in the parser, better compatibility with existing documents). Like I said I'll go with that (assuming Clark goes with it as well). > rant: > > No amount of philosophizing is gonna convince me that a > dash is part of indentation. If Guido can create an entire > object-oriented programming language community around Python, > which abides by the simple rule that indentation == number of > spaces, then why can't we do the same for YAML? That's code, not data, and there is a difference. Guido never used an indentation syntax for data. If he had perhaps we wouldn't have needed YAML, he's a pretty sharp guy :-) At any rate, all we can do is argue this on merits. I don't put much store in the philosophical description of "'-' being part of the indentation". What matters to me is what is and what is not valid YAML syntax. Given our goals (radability/writability), is there a compelling argument not to allow: --- this: - use - case ... I think there isn't. Assuming this is the only change we make compared to the current state (state 1, as promoted by Why and Brian), the rest is just a wording debate. You can think of it as a special case (seq-in-key) or as counting the '-' as part of the indentation or whatever you want, that's besides the point. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |
From: <sh...@zi...> - 2002-09-28 16:22:03
|
> sh...@zi... [mailto:sh...@zi...] wrote: > > # 33.3% valid YAML of the future?? > > No need to get sarcastic. The following is invalid and nobody ever suggested > otherwise: > > Unindented scalar: | > > Indentation is the > > number of spaces. Period. The sarcasm was purely unindented. ;) This was the proposed 33.3% valid YAML: sequence - zero spaces - but level ?? indentation I could see, though, how you were confused into thinking the scalar was the unindented piece that I was referring to. After all, the map, sequence, and scalar were all equally unindented. Cheers, Steve |
From: <sh...@zi...> - 2002-09-28 16:28:10
|
Oren wrote: > I don't put much store in the philosophical description of "'-' being part > of the indentation". What matters to me is what is and what is not valid > YAML syntax. Given our goals (radability/writability), is there a compelling > argument not to allow: > > --- > this: > - use > - case > ... > The reasons to allow it are about as compelling as the reasons not to allow it. --- the tried and true YAML way: - is easy to type for anybody with opposable thumbs - looks pretty nice - has been implemented successfully at least 3 times - has the advantage of being restrictive--we can always loosen it later - has never elicited complaints from outside the YAML core crew --- the proposed new YAML way: - saves typing - looks great with two-space indentation - creates a LOT of thought-provoking emails about wording ;) Cheers, Steve |