I agree here. I briefly urged against using the less used TOML format, but I have no real skin in the game around packaging. I like YAML, but that's also not in the standard library, even if more widely used.
But given that packaging is committed to TOML, I think that's a strong case for including a library in stdlib. The PEP 517/518 authors had their reasons that were accepted. Now there is broad ecosystem that is built on that choice. Let's support it. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 8:03 AM Anders Hovmöller <bo...@killingar.net> wrote: > > >> He's referring to PEPs 518 and 517 [1], which indeed standardize on > >> TOML as a file format for Python package build metadata. > >> > >> I think moving anything into the stdlib would be premature though – > >> TOML libraries are under active development, and the general trend in > >> the packaging space has been to move things *out* of the stdlib (e.g. > >> there's repeated rumblings about moving distutils out), because the > >> stdlib release cycle doesn't work well for packaging infrastructure. > > > > If I had the energy to argue it I would also argue against using TOML > > in those PEPs. I personally don't especially care for TOML and what's > > "obvious" to Tom is not at all obvious to me. I'd rather just stick > > with YAML or perhaps something even simpler than either one. > > This thread isn't about regretting past decisions but what makes sense > given current realities though. > > / Anders >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
