Me too. YAML is *so much* more widely used, and the complicated edge cases can simply be ignored for this requirement. Maybe it's just because I've never heard of whatever improper behavior the author engaged in, but I don't think a data format needs to answer to the actions of its creator(s). If G. Klyne or C. Newman were to do something dreadful I wouldn't want dates to stop following ISO-8601.[*] [*] I don't even know the 8601 authors' first names, and assume they are good and honorable people. Just making an analogy. On Aug 25, 2017 5:46 PM, "xoviat" <xoviat@gmail.com> wrote:
I personally do not understand the aversion to YAML. I mean yes, the specification is more complicated, but it's also more popular and the YAML files will not be complex enough for a C library to help that much. And since it's more popular, people might even prefer specifying package metadata in a pyproject.yaml. pip could even cache a wheel of the pyyaml package between builds that could be imported at build time with a zipimporter rather than vendoring the package. And as a plus it's not named after an alleged sexist.
Honestly this is not an issue that interests me very much but this rant is because I was surprised that toml was chosen when I first found out about it.
2017-08-25 18:16 GMT-05:00 Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com>:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
(The community around it is sensitive to gender diversity issues and wants to avoid acquiring more of a "brogrammer" image, so some of us worry that any conspicuous TOML files checked into revision control repositories could be seen as a tacit endorsement of the author's alleged behavior at GH a few years ago.)
I was one of the folks championing TOML during the original discussions, and this is an issue that also worried me a lot. In case it's a useful data point: I actually contacted several of the main rust/cargo developers, since they were the major users of TOML and are also well known to be sensitive to these issues, to ask if they've had any issues with this, and they said that they haven't heard any complaints.
Obviously there's a difference between "no-one complained" and "no-one was bothered", and I suspect the community's existing reputation may affect how this is interpreted as well, but... maybe useful as a data point.
Between this and the way the TOML spec appears to have been abandoned at v0.4 (with the admonition "you should assume that is is unstable and act accordingly") I've wondered if we should fork it, rename it "the obvious minimal language", and release our own 1.0.
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig