From: ''Brian I. ' ' <in...@tt...> - 2001-10-27 07:30:36
|
On 27/10/01 09:13 +0200, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > Brian wrote: > > > I am now :-) But I have breakfast to make and a Windsurfing session to > > > attend soon. > > > > Sounds fun. > > The down side is that skiing season is really short here :-) At any rate, > I'm signing off for the rest of the day - be back online in 12 hours or so. > > > > A final note: would these be members of the 'null' implicit type? If > > > so we should rename it to "none", I think, as these two new values > > > aren't nulls: > > > > I would just make them !null, !empty_list, and !empty_map. > > Hmmm. "empty_list" is hardly a type all by itself... Maybe I misunderstood your question. Better give a full explanation. (With examples of course) > > --- > > ~: > > ___ > > : > > ~: > > --- > > > > The first is nicer, but I disallowed unmarked scalars in a previous > > post. > > Why, exactly? I didn't follow the reasoning there. OK. We can allow an unquoted scalar at the top level. Therefore we can allow implicit types at that level. We just have to add rules that some strings, like '---' for instance will need to be quoted to keep from being parsed as YAML syntax. Strings starting with '-', or containing ':' will also need to be quoted. See my pain? Cheers, Brian |