On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:34:32 -0300, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
That's what I had in mind. > 2) JSON (being a subset of YAML) would not be enough? It would for this purpose, but I think the key feature of YAML is it's ability to represent relational data without duplication. Since people write options files by hand, it would be nice to avoid duplication. > I agree with Matt. Thanks, I'll do it this way. Jed
