From: Clark C. E. <cc...@cl...> - 2003-08-06 18:12:32
|
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:51:22AM +0300, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: | > 1. Does '#' exception need to be in 3.6.3? I'm not clear why | > it is done this way. | | I'm somewhat uncomfortable with #1. It somehow feels wrong to have a '#' | not start a comment without explicit marker causing it to be treated as | content. I can see the sense in it though (for indenting YAML text). | I'll go either way here. Ahh. I think you are correct. This case is ambiguous: key: | # content or an empty scalar with a comment So, let's keep 3.6.3, but add the example above to the examples (if it isn't already there) so that we don't forget why this seemingly out-of-place exception is there. | > 2. Should we allow for the indentation to be set at the first | > non-empty line? This would probably be a good policy, and | > would not cause any "look-ahead" issues, as the number of | > blank lines could be stored in a counter. | | I feel better about #2. As you point out it can easily be implemented by | a counter, and there's no ambiguity involved at all (unlike the '#' case). Cool. Your other post seems like it matches the intent of _why's implementation and makes sense to me. It is a bit more to implement, but, till now we've not shyed away from making the implementation tougher to have a more intuitive syntax. And, being able to have blank lines at the start of a literal scalar is quite intuitive. | I can whip up a patched version of the spec in no time... But while we | are at it, can we please announce it at least as a release candidate? We | are very overdue for starting a formal freeze process. Sure. And I'll work on that formal part like we agreed some 6 months ago. (*ducks for cover*) Best, Clark |