Standarize TOML?

[Terry Reedy]

On 5/17/2021 4:29 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 15 May 2021, at 23:39, Jason C. McDonald <codemouse92 at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> During the Steering Committee presentation at PyCon, it was mentioned
>> that no one has formally proposed TOML be added to the standard library
>> (emphasis on formal). THe joke went forth that there would be a flood
>> of proposals to that end.
>>
>> So, just to kick this off while the thought is still fresh in a bunch of
>> people's minds: **should we add a TOML parser to the standard library**?
>>
>> The main reason this matters is to help encourage adoption of the now
>> PEP-standardized pyproject.toml. A few projects have cited the lack of
>> a standardized TOML implementation in the standard library as a reason
>> not to adopt pyproject.toml...and the topic thus became weirdly
>> political.
>>
>> I understand that Brett Cannon intends to bring this up at the next
>> language summit, but, ah, might as well put the community two-cents in
>> now, hey?
>>
>> I, for one, feel like this is obvious.
> 
> I think the python ideas list is a better place to have this discussion.

I disagree.  Rehashing *opinions* is pretty useless. The issues were 
already discussed on
https://discuss.python.org/t/adopting-recommending-a-toml-parser/4068

There are multiple packages.  There is no consensus on which to pick, 
*if any*. Existing modules apparently include writers, which are 
necessarily opinionated (as is formatting of C, Python, html, ...).  As 
I just noted in the discussion, the stdlib does not have an html writer. 
    So if we want just a parser, maybe we should generate one from the 
grammar.  Then there are broader 'What should be in the stdlib discussions.

If anyone has *new information* about toml, post it there.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy