Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Arnaud Delobelle arnodel at googlemail.com
Tue Mar 2 08:09:24 CET 2010

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes:

> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too
>> hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of
>>> JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file.
>>> Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON.
>> Well, Python is essentially a superset of JSON, with string escape
>> handling being ever so slightly different, and using True instead of
>> true, False instead of false, and None instead of null.  YMMV, but I
>> find it possible, even probable, to write Python that is far easier to
>> edit than JSON, and in fact, I have used Python for configuration
>> files that are only to be edited by programmers or other technical
>> types.
> This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset"
> (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON),
> but still doesn't address the question.  Is RSON and _actual_ superset
> of JSON, or are you just misusing the term there, as well?  If it is,
> then your rationale for not using JSON makes no sense if you're making
> a new format that's merely a superset of it.  Obviously JSON can't be
> that unreadable if you're _extending_ it to make your own "more
> readable" format.  If JSON is unreadable, so must be RSON.

Your argument is utterly speculative as you are making clear you haven't
read the OP's proposal.


More information about the Python-list mailing list