holger at merlinux.eu
Tue Oct 28 10:59:08 CET 2014
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 16:45 -0400, Daniel Holth wrote:
> I liked it because I agree with the TOML author that the YAML spec
> gives rage; YAML seems to be defined as a bunch of things that the end
> user is supposed to think are intuitive, but try understanding and
> correctly parsing the full set of what is allowed... TOML on the other
> hand is short.
Don't know but TOML could work well as a user facing config syntax.
Seems to be reasonably well defined and more expressive than plain ini
files. Would be curious if it could be used for tox for example.
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 October 2014 19:23, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> >> Ugh, I hate TOML. I’m -1 on any of the standards using it, but I also
> >> think the standards should be around data exchange and should just use
> >> JSON and leave front end stuff like that up to the implementations.
> > I had a quick glance at TOML, and I can't say I was particularly
> > enamoured by it. I don't see that it has any particularly huge
> > benefits over "plain" ini files (if your needs are simple) or YAML
> > (ignoring the over-complicated stuff that nobody actually needs).
> > +1 on JSON for "internal" format, and tools deciding for themselves on
> > the best user-facing format.
> > I'm also not sure I see the value of mapping directly to a dict.
> > Surely internal formats should be isolated from the user interface,
> > not exposed directly?
> > Paul
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org
More information about the Distutils-SIG