From: trans. (T. Onoma) <tra...@ru...> - 2004-09-14 01:45:20
|
On Monday 13 September 2004 08:41 pm, Sean O'Dell wrote: > On Monday 13 September 2004 17:03, Clark C. Evans wrote: > > Backwards compability should not be broken unless there > > is an obvious and significant advantage, the transition > > is dooable without ambiguity, and the product would be > > significantly hobbled without the break. > > Leave YAML where it is and start a completely different project based on > it. Fork your own project, leave YAML at 100% compatibility with itself a= nd > do something 100% right from the ground up. Woooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! Sean is <b>bold<b>! But really, how much would you do differently? Maybe allow for a bit more= =20 variety in data structures? Maybe get rid of implicit wart altogether?=20 Switch ! with !!. Clean up the syntax a little more. I don't really know = if=20 there's enough to justify a /\w+/AY. Unless you have some bold new direction.....=20 T. (ever heard of Z-spaces btw?) =2D-=20 ( o _ =E3=82=AB=E3=83=A9=E3=83=81 // trans. / \ tra...@ru... I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. =2DMark Twain |