On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:23:11 -0400, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess I have no problem with this if: > > a) Its completely backwards compatible with the options-style
For YAML files, I would expect to simply parse into the usual options format. If we had a need for the options database to represent truly relational data, we could flip it around (changing the underlying storage) and turn the -options_separated_by_underscores into hierarchical options, but that seems like overkill at the moment. > b) the YAML part is not going to break the build LibYAML claims to be very portable standard C, but I sure wouldn't want it to be a required dependency (at least not until/unless it proved itself and we saw sufficient benefit). > I favor the low-level interface to FieldSplit taking a name and IS. Okay, I'll do that support, and at some point (maybe in a couple weeks) implement optional YAML parsing --with-libyaml and --download-libyaml so we can experiment with it. Jed
