On 12 May 2010 16:23, 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 > ??b) the YAML part is not going to break the build > This will likely mean revamping the Options*() API. >
1) Are we going to grab a YAML parser from elsewere? 2) JSON (being a subset of YAML) would not be enough? > > I favor the low-level interface to FieldSplit taking a name and IS. > ?? Matt > I agree with Matt. -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169
