What YAML engine do you use?
Reinhold Birkenfeld
reinhold-birkenfeld-nospam at wolke7.net
Fri Jan 21 14:26:36 EST 2005
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:54:50 +0100,
> Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
>> judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
>> clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever seen. they
>> need help, not users.
>
> IMHO that's a bit extreme. Specifications are written to be detailed, so
> consequently they're torture to read. Seen the ReStructured Text spec
> lately?
Agreed. If you just want to use it, you don't need the spec anyway.
> The basic idea -- a data dumping format that's human-readable -- isn't a bad
> one. OTOH, I can't recall wanting such a thing -- when I want readable
> output I'm happy using
> unreadable pickle files, unpickling the object and calling a .dump() or
> .as_text() method.)
>
> But YAML seems to have started out with the goal of being human-writable,
> something you would write in Emacs,
Exactly. I use it as a format for config files the user can edit
directly without much thinking (the explanation on top of the file are 3
lines).
> and that seems to have gotten lost; the
> format is now just as complicated as Restructured Text, but more cryptic
> (the URI namespacing for tags, for example), not really simpler than
> XML and in some ways weaker (e.g. only two encodings supported, more
> complicated escaping rules).
In most cases you don't need the complicated things, and the
http://www.yaml.org/refcard.html isn't very complex either.
Reinhold
More information about the Python-list
mailing list