Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

[Patrick Maupin]

On Mar 1, 12:40 pm, Daniel Fetchinson <fetchin... at googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem.  The really
> > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on.  We
> > don't need another configuration language.  I can't even say "yet
> > another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml.
>
> And in case you are new here let me assure you that Paul is saying
> this with his full intention of being helpful to you. I also would
> think that working on such a project might be fun and educational for
> you but completely useless if you have users other than yourself in
> mind. Again, I'm trying to be helpful here, so you can focus on a
> project that is both fun/educational for you and also potentially
> useful for others. This RSON business is not one of them.

OK, but I am a bit unclear on what you and/or Paul are claiming.  It
could be one of a number of things.  For example:

- There is a preexisting file format suitable for my needs, so I
should not invent another one.

- If I invent a file format suitable for my needs, it couldn't
possibly be general enough for anybody else.

- Even if it was general enough for somebody else, there would only be
two of them.

I've been known to waste time (or be accused of wasting time) on
various endeavors, but I like to know exactly *why* it is perceived to
be a waste.

Regards,
Pat