On 2 Jun 2013 02:43, "Andrew Barnert" <abarnert@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 7:04, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given the mess that was the partial inclusion of PyXML, the explicit
> > decision to disallow any future externally maintained libraries (see
> > PEP 360) and the existing proposal to include a pip bootstraping
> > mechanism in Python 3.4 (see PEP 439), I have my doubts that Python
> > 3.4 is the right time to be including a potentially volatile library,
> > even if providing a YAML parser as an included battery is a good idea
> > in the long run.
> For the record, the OP (Phillip) was thinking 3.5 or later. I'm the one who made the assumption he wanted this in 3.4, and he immediately corrected me.
> Also, I get the impression that he wants to define a new API which doesn't match any of the existing libraries, and not add anything to the stdlib until one of the existing (fast) libraries has an adaptation to the new API, which means it's clearly not an immediate-term goal. He just wants to get some consensus that this is a good idea before starting the work of defining that API, finding or building a reference implementation in pure Python, and convincing the existing library authors to adapt to the standard API.

Ah, I missed that. If the target time frame is 3.5 and the API design goals include "secure by default, full power of YAML when requested" then it sounds like a fine idea to try.


> If I've interpreted him wrong, I apologize.