Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

[Robert Kern]

On 2010-03-02 11:59 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/2/2010 11:34 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On 2010-03-01 22:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis<m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
>>>>> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>>>>> This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset"
>>>>> (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON),
>>>>> but
>>>>
>>>> Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but seriously, if I take valid
>>>> JSON, replace unquoted true with True, unquoted false with False,
>>>> replace unquoted null with None, and take the quoted strings and
>>>> replace occurrences of \uXXXX with the appropriate unicode, then I do,
>>>> in fact, have valid Python. But don't take my word for it -- try it
>>>> out!
>>>
>>> To me this is so strained that I do not see why why you are arguing the
>>> point. So what? The resulting Python 'program' will be equivalent, I
>>> believe, to 'pass'. Ie, construct objects and then discard them with no
>>> computation or output.
>>
>> Not if you eval() rather than exec().
>
>  >>> eval(1)
>
> creates and objects and discards it, with a net result of 'pass'.
> What do you think I am missing.

x = eval('1')

> It's reasonably well-accepted that
>> JSON is very close to being a subset of Python's expression syntax with
>> just a few modifications.
>
> It is specifically JavaScript Object Notation, which is very similar to
> a subset of Python's object notation (number and string literals and
> list and dict displays (but not set displays), and three named
> constants). Without operators, it barely qualifies, to me, even as
> 'expression syntax'.

Literal expression syntax, then.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco