Standarize TOML?
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon May 17 19:48:12 EDT 2021
On 5/17/2021 4:29 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
>
>
>> On 15 May 2021, at 23:39, Jason C. McDonald <codemouse92 at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> During the Steering Committee presentation at PyCon, it was mentioned
>> that no one has formally proposed TOML be added to the standard library
>> (emphasis on formal). THe joke went forth that there would be a flood
>> of proposals to that end.
>>
>> So, just to kick this off while the thought is still fresh in a bunch of
>> people's minds: **should we add a TOML parser to the standard library**?
>>
>> The main reason this matters is to help encourage adoption of the now
>> PEP-standardized pyproject.toml. A few projects have cited the lack of
>> a standardized TOML implementation in the standard library as a reason
>> not to adopt pyproject.toml...and the topic thus became weirdly
>> political.
>>
>> I understand that Brett Cannon intends to bring this up at the next
>> language summit, but, ah, might as well put the community two-cents in
>> now, hey?
>>
>> I, for one, feel like this is obvious.
>
> I think the python ideas list is a better place to have this discussion.
I disagree. Rehashing *opinions* is pretty useless. The issues were
already discussed on
https://discuss.python.org/t/adopting-recommending-a-toml-parser/4068
There are multiple packages. There is no consensus on which to pick,
*if any*. Existing modules apparently include writers, which are
necessarily opinionated (as is formatting of C, Python, html, ...). As
I just noted in the discussion, the stdlib does not have an html writer.
So if we want just a parser, maybe we should generate one from the
grammar. Then there are broader 'What should be in the stdlib discussions.
If anyone has *new information* about toml, post it there.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list
mailing list