Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format
pmaupin at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 20:59:13 CET 2010
On Mar 1, 1:37 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em... at nospam.invalid> wrote:
> There are in fact quite a few--json, yaml, .ini, xml, Python literals
> (http://code.activestate.com/recipes/364469-safe-eval/), s-expressions,
> actual Python code that the application can import, and so forth.
Yes, I know about those.
> The problem isn't that you're trying to invent a useless file format per
> se, but rather that in trying to get other people to learn it and use
> it, you're also trying to appropriate a chunk of the user community's
> scarce and precious brain cells without good justification. Newbie
> designers are often lured into that and they're unfortunately (i.e. to
> the community's detrimtent) often more successful than they really
> should be.
Can't disagree with the statement about newbie designers. On the flip
side, sometimes things wind up being defacto standards, simply because
nobody could be bothered to write a better one, and they have lots of
little niggling warts that also collectively take up a lot of time and
attention. There is obviously a good balance somewhere.
> Your one complaint about yaml is that it's slow to parse. Why do you
> care about the parsing speed of a config file? If the existing
> implementation is too slow, why not write a faster one instead of
> designing yayaml? Even yaml is excessive in my view. "Yet another" was
> an ok plan when Steve Johnson started the trope by writing Yacc 30 years
> ago. These days, don't do yet another without very convincing reasons
> for rejecting what is already there.
One of my complaints. If you had read the document you would have
seen others. I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I
tried to write a cogent summary.
More information about the Python-list