10.05.2016, 18:00, Antoine Pitrou kirjoitti:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:55:38 -0400
Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
I think TOML is more usable than ConfigParser and in particular I think that
the adhoc post processing step makes ConfigParser inherently less usable
because it forces a special syntax that is specific to this one file. It also
means that there's no "right" answer for when you have two different
implementations that interpret the same file differently.
That's true. OTOH, the question is how much better it is for users
that it's worthwhile bothering them with a syntax change that will
require (at one point or another) migrating existing files. TOML doesn't
seem that compelling to me in that regard (quite less than YAML, and I'm
not a YAML fan).
(as an aside, if there's the question of forking an existing parser
implementation for better vendorability, forking a YAML parser may be
more useful to third-party folks than forking a TOML parser :-))
Amen to that, and that's exactly what I'd like to do.
What should the parser be capable of to be accepted for this task? What
are the requirements?
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
