RE: FW: [Yaml-core] Block Counter Proposal (Re: YAML Implementati ons a Plenty)

[Oren Ben-K. <or...@ri...>]

Clark C . Evans [mailto:cc...@cl...] wrote:
> Or... we could do...
> 
>    One: <<T
>        Imagine this block scalar as being
>        indented by a tab character.
>    Two: <<T-
>        
>        Leading new line, but not a trailing new line.
> 
> ...
> 
> While we are at it (updating the spec) I'd
> like to limit tab(i) production so that it
> it is either:
>    tab(i+1) = tab(i) '\t'
> or tab(i+1) = tab(i) ' '+
> 
> In other words, either a tab, or 1+ spaces,
> but not a mixture of tabs and spaces.  This
> would fit in nicely with the above <<N 
> mechanism where N in { 1,2,3,... } union { T }

I don't know. I agree with Jason that counting characters
isn't fun. I think that the '<' indent '>' idea is more
friendly - cut&paste of the indent is a friendlier operation
for human-edited files. As for each indentation level being
' '+ XOR '\t', I agree it is "good practice" but I don't
think it should be enforced in the spec.

My problem with the '|' syntax is that it is so, well,
*verbose*. And it is actually less human-friendly when
editing a file - if you want to paste a chunk of text
into your YAML document as a block, you can't just paste
& indent it, you need to add these pesky '|' characters
to each line. My way you could just paste, indent, and
copy the indentation in between the '<' ... '>' pair.

This seems like the easiest way you could do it, except
of course for the classical Perl way:

    block: <<ARBITRARY-END-OF-BLOCK
block here, not indented
ARBITRARY-END-OF-BLOCK

I have to admit, it has its charm (simplicity, robustness).
True, it isn't indented, but I'm wondering how important
that is for a large chunk of pre-formatted text (e.g., code)
with reasonably long lines. Especially when this text is
given as a value to a key which isn't at the top level:

map: %
    key: %
        sub-key: %
            sub-sub-key:
               |Long line here - more readable?
            as-opposed-to: <<BLOCK
Long line here - less readable?
BLOCK

I'm having second thoughts...

Have fun,

	Oren Ben-Kiki