Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 16 May 2016 at 16:41, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > As pointed out, it's a C lib. But as we all like writing tools, it wouldn't > be very hard to write a Python parser for the format. There is one (on PyPI - can't recall the name now, sorry). > But it's a bit

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

The PEP has been accepted by Nick. Let's turn our thoughts to more productive topics rather than talking about a moot point. Cheers, Ian ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

1. again, ConfigObj is pure Python, supports nesting, and is read/write (so there is no need to template injectable config files (e.g., with \n, =, #;etc. must be escaped)) | PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/configobj/5.0.6 | Src: https://github.com/DiffSK/configobj | Docs:

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

​Not asking for any change but has anyone looked at libconfig ? ​It looks quite interesting: simple grammar and nesting support. What do you think of it As pointed out, it's a C lib. But as we all like writing tools, it wouldn't be very

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 15 May 2016 at 08:21, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> No need to think; the decision is made and it's TOML. I know Chris doesn't >> mean to stir up trouble, but at this point if someone wants to

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > No need to think; the decision is made and it's TOML. I know Chris doesn't > mean to stir up trouble, but at this point if someone wants to propose > something other than TOML they are going to have to write their own PEP.

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Chris Barker writes: > Oh, and why not "JSON with comments and trailing commas" - it would be well > defined and easy to implement. And mostly done, even: https://bitbucket.org/intellimath/pyaxon ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > No need to think; the decision is made and it's TOML. I know Chris doesn't > mean to stir up trouble, > I got a bit out of sync with the conversation -- sorry for the noise. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D.

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 10:47 Paul Moore wrote: > On 13 May 2016 at 18:15, Chris Barker wrote: > > I think we're freaking out way too much about what *could* go wrong. > > It's more that:pip would have to vendor pyyaml, and it's not small. I > have no

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> I would love to use YAML. I really would. But for pip, we need a >> robust, easy to vendor Python implementation > > > conda has been using

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 13 May 2016 at 18:15, Chris Barker wrote: > I think we're freaking out way too much about what *could* go wrong. It's more that:pip would have to vendor pyyaml, and it's not small. I have no idea whether it's easy to vendor, either (does it have separate code paths for

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > I would love to use YAML. I really would. But for pip, we need a > robust, easy to vendor Python implementation conda has been using yaml forever (with pyyaml) , and whatever problem is has (and there are many), I don't

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 12, 2016, at 3:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 11 May 2016 at 15:47, Greg Ewing wrote: >> Having looked over the TOML spec, I like the simplicity >> of it (and I cringe from the complexity of YAML). >> The only thing I don't like

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 11 May 2016 at 15:47, Greg Ewing wrote: > Having looked over the TOML spec, I like the simplicity > of it (and I cringe from the complexity of YAML). > The only thing I don't like about TOML is the way it > cops out on nesting. > > The only reason it does that as

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 11, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Nicholas Chammas > wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:15 AM Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io > wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:15 AM Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote: > > On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > > > (as an aside, if there's the question of forking an existing parser > > implementation for better

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Having looked over the TOML spec, I like the simplicity of it (and I cringe from the complexity of YAML). The only thing I don't like about TOML is the way it cops out on nesting. The only reason it does that as far as I can see is because of a dislike for significant indentation. But that

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Just so everyone knows, I'm ignoring this thread as the PEP I'm drafting with Donald and Nathaniel is nearly finished and thus has already settled on the file format discussion and I haven't heard a new point made on any file format proposal that has already been brought up previously. On Tue, 10

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 10 May 2016 at 13:40, Wolfgang wrote: > So why not use the ConfigParser available with Python and extend it to meet > the requirements. Custom getters can be written and for the complex > stuff ast.literal_eval() can be used to safely parse the complex list > of

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/10/2016 09:38 AM, Alex Grönholm wrote: 10.05.2016, 19:35, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: It's too complicated and error-prone. If we want buy-in from casual packagers then our configuration language needs to be simple to understand and simple to get right. (The amount of leading whitespace

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

10.05.2016, 19:35, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Alex Grönholm wrote: 10.05.2016, 18:26, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: Please no. I'd rather do xml than yaml. Why do you hate it so much? I strongly prefer YAML to anything else I've seen here. It's too complicated and

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Alex Grönholm wrote: 10.05.2016, 18:26, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: Please no. I'd rather do xml than yaml. Why do you hate it so much? I strongly prefer YAML to anything else I've seen here. It's too complicated and error-prone. If we want buy-in from casual

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Hi, have done a lot of configuration stuff. Also used the Python ConfigParser (backported version from 3.x) It can be improved, yes. ;-) But the INI style syntax is known and there are tools and parsers available. It is a simple format and this is good. Because it is still human readable and

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 10 May 2016 at 16:00, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:55:38 -0400 > Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> I think TOML is more usable than ConfigParser and in particular I think that >> the adhoc post processing step makes ConfigParser inherently

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

10.05.2016, 18:26, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: On 05/10/2016 08:14 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: (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

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:38:51 +0300 > Alex Grönholm wrote: >> TOML isn't much better than ConfigParser in terms of representing nested >> structures. > > Indeed, that seems to be a strong

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/10/2016 08:14 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: (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

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

10.05.2016, 18:14, Donald Stufft kirjoitti: On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: (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

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > (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 :-)) I’m

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

10.05.2016, 18:00, Antoine Pitrou kirjoitti: On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:55:38 -0400 Donald Stufft 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

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:55:38 -0400 Donald Stufft 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

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:24:10 -0400 > Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> TOML is infinitely better at nested structured that ConfigParser, given that >> TOML actually *supports* nested structures beyond a

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:24:10 -0400 Donald Stufft wrote: > > TOML is infinitely better at nested structured that ConfigParser, given that > TOML actually *supports* nested structures beyond a level of 1. The only way > to get anything like: > > [package.build] >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/10/2016 01:54 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Writing our own is simply a way to end up with additional maintenance work, that we really don't have the resources for. I like writing tools. If the format is one I can get behind I'm happy to be the resource for it. This rules out JSON and YAML,

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, 10 May 2016 10:38:51 +0300 Alex Grönholm wrote: > TOML isn't much better than ConfigParser in terms of representing nested > structures. Indeed, that seems to be a strong point against TOML. If we don't care about nested structures that much, then ConfigParser

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On May 09, 2016, at 08:30 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >How hard is it to bundle it with pip by copying the source files into >pip._vendor.* Every time another package is vendored, a kitten falls off a unicorn. ;) Cheers, -Barry pgpetwbrYXBeb.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

In all this talk about using a YAML subset, I'm surprised no one mentioned YAMLish: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/yamlish It is a well defined subset of YAML and there are implementations in other programming languages. The problem with the 200+-lines-single-file library above is that it depends

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 10 May 2016 at 18:54, Paul Moore wrote: > Well, IMO, the state of things in terms of config file formats (and > not just in Python) is itself pretty dreadful - every time I write an > application, I am astounded that there are no good options for > something as basic as a

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

For what it's worth, I've been following this thread, and I like the idea of using TOML for all the "pro" reasons posted so far. It's newness or not reaching 1.0 yet don't bother me as I believe the plans to specify TOML 0.4 or optionally support the later versions if they don't cause

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

This looks very close to what I'd like to have, but then we'd have the situation of an uncommon format with no tooling support, won't we? Assuming the actual config file is in xaml format. 10.05.2016, 02:56, Ethan Furman kirjoitti: On 05/06/2016 07:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: Here's that

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

10.05.2016, 12:43, Ionel Cristian Mărieș kirjoitti: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alex Grönholm > wrote: So far the ONLY objective problems with YAML seems to be the problematic implementation named PyYAML. If this is

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alex Grönholm wrote: > So far the ONLY objective problems with YAML seems to be the problematic > implementation named PyYAML. If this is really the case, I'd gladly help > build a better one just to prevent TOML from being chosen for

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 10 May 2016 at 08:38, Alex Grönholm wrote: > A few facts: > > YAML is good enough for Salt, Ansible and numerous other common tools > The YAML standard has been stable for many years, unlike TOML which still > hasn't even reached 1.0 > YAML has widespread tooling

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

A few facts: * YAML is good enough for Salt, Ansible and numerous other common tools * The YAML standard has been stable for many years, unlike TOML which still hasn't even reached 1.0 * YAML has widespread tooling support, unlike TOML We all agree that JSON is not the solution. No

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/09/2016 08:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: After further consideration, and pytoml's author's comment about the spec changing without a version increase, I think we might be better off rolling our own. He's a bit confused -- they

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Really? writing Yet Another Markup Language (YAML :-) ) CAN'T be the simplest, best option. > After further consideration, and pytoml's author's comment about the spec changing without a version increase, I think we might be better off rolling our own. > > I like the general simplicity, and

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 05/09/2016 05:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> >> On 05/07/2016 09:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >>> I also checked pytoml at https://github.com/avakar/pytoml and it looks >>> like it's pretty stable; no changes in the

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Next thing you know we end up with a new setup.py, with imports, PYTHONPATH hacking et al ;-) > On May 9, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > > I just found this on StackOverflow: > > http://stackoverflow.com/a/648487/208880 > > tl;dr > - > > > Recently I was

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

I just found this on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/a/648487/208880 tl;dr - > Recently I was working upon a project and I realised that I wanted to > have conditionals inside my configuration file [...] > > I didn't want to write a mini-language, because unless I did it very >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/09/2016 05:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 05/07/2016 09:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: I also checked pytoml at https://github.com/avakar/pytoml and it looks like it's pretty stable; no changes in the past 5 months except to support Python 3.5 and only 3 issues. And the format is simple

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 9, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > > Um, what does "vendorability" mean? How hard is it to bundle it with pip by copying the source files into pip._vendor.* - Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/09/2016 12:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: Also, I think it makes a lot of sense to go with YAML even if it isn't the best most readable option. It's much more common than TOML so the learning curve will be lessened. I'd rather learn some new syntax that is readable than be stuck with a

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/07/2016 04:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote: Actually, Nathaniel didn't test vendorability of the libraries, and pip needs that. Pyyaml isn't in good shape there. Um, what does "vendorability" mean? -- ~Ethan~ ___ Distutils-SIG maillist -

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/07/2016 09:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: +1 for TOML from me as well. I know Paul brought up the lack of familiarity, but the format is simple and the Rust community is already fully dependent on it so at worst Rust + us could always just ignore future format versions if necessary. If TOML

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 05/06/2016 07:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration languages that I mentioned: https://gist.github.com/njsmith/78f68204c5d969f8c8bc645ef77d4a8f Very nice work-up, thanks! However, you didn't include XML -- which, while

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On May 08, 2016, at 09:05 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >E.g. use setup.cfg now. Add pybuild.toml later. (btw, terrible name, >as pybuild is a thing in the debian space, and this will confuse the >heck out of folk). https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Pybuild Yes, please don't call it pybuild ;) Also, I

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 11:21 Chris Barker wrote: > "pymeta" feels very "inessentially weird" to me [1]. > > > yeah... > > setup.toml > > ??? > You can all stop guessing at file names. The PEP will have a recommendation and you all can either agree or disagree at that

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> > "pymeta" feels very "inessentially weird" to me [1]. yeah... setup.toml ??? -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 06:29 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 01:43, Donald Stufft wrote: > > Overall, my suggestion here would be to have a file called > ``pymeta.toml`` (or > > ``meta.toml``) > > pymeta.toml would be fine by me. > > I don't really

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 01:43, Donald Stufft wrote: >> Overall, my suggestion here would be to have a file called ``pymeta.toml`` >> (or >> ``meta.toml``) > > pymeta.toml would be fine by me. > > I don't really

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 23:38, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>> Looking at my previous ideas for semantic dependencies in PEP 426, >>> what

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 9 May 2016 at 23:38, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On May 9, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> Looking at my previous ideas for semantic dependencies in PEP 426, >> what if we start in the near term by defining development >> requirements? > > I

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 9, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Looking at my previous ideas for semantic dependencies in PEP 426, > what if we start in the near term by defining development > requirements? I think the biggest reason not to do this, but instead do something like

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 9 May 2016 at 01:43, Donald Stufft wrote: > Overall, my suggestion here would be to have a file called ``pymeta.toml`` (or > ``meta.toml``) pymeta.toml would be fine by me. I don't really buy the "collision with Debian build tool" argument against "pybuild" (if I did, I'd

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Based on this email and Nathaniel's evaluation I've gone ahead and taken it upon myself to start writing a PEP so we have something concrete to work from. I'm hoping to have it done some time this week. On Sun, 8 May 2016 at 08:43 Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On May 8, 2016, at

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 8 May 2016 at 22:38, Nicholas Chammas wrote: > Perhaps a more limited YAML library like Poyo would address some of the > concerns we have about using PyYAML. I'm -1 on using "a subset of" a standard format. It immediately invites debate and confusion over

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 8, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Nicholas Chammas > wrote: > > Poyo in particular may be too limited, but I wonder how much it would sway > people if we used YAML but not PyYAML. If we found a reasonable library for parsing YAML it might be a more reasonable

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:23 AM Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: - YAML ought to be wonderful, but it ended up over-engineered (yes, we > can ignore the bits we don't care about). Also, pyYAML is a bit of an > annoying dependency (big, reportedly slow

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 8, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > So let's reduce our scope to: "We want *current users* of d2to1 and > pbr to be able to declare those dependencies to pip and other > installation tools in a way that avoids the implicit invocation of > easy_install by

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 8 May 2016 at 08:46, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On May 7, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >> >> Either we are defining the long term thing now, in which case that >> huge pile of complexity lands on us, and we have to get everything >>

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > Couple thoughts. > > Firstly, the human-editable bit: who in the last *decade* has been > writing code using a non-syntax-aware/helping editor? Its a supremely > uninteresting aspect IMO. > > On ConfigParser -

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

This is fine as long as developer convenience does not suffer. Underlying implementations can always be improved, but if we decide on a sucky format, we'll have to live with that for a long time. 08.05.2016, 08:07, Chris Barker kirjoitti: On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Brett Cannon

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: For both options I hear "pick a new format", which suggests we might as > well do it from the get-go for clear separation of the new stuff and just > bite the bullet instead of simply postponing a decision; it isn't like our >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Sat, May 7, 2016, 15:47 Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On May 7, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: > > > > Either we are defining the long term thing now, in which case that > > huge pile of complexity lands on us, and we have to get

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

08.05.2016, 02:08, Donald Stufft kirjoitti: On May 7, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Alex Grönholm > wrote: 07.05.2016, 17:48, Nick Coghlan kirjoitti: On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > Here's that one-stop

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 7, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Alex Grönholm wrote: > > 07.05.2016, 17:48, Nick Coghlan kirjoitti: >> >> On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" < >> n...@pobox.com > wrote: >> > >> > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

07.05.2016, 17:48, Nick Coghlan kirjoitti: On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" > wrote: > > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration > languages that I mentioned: > >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 7, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Either we are defining the long term thing now, in which case that > huge pile of complexity lands on us, and we have to get everything > right. > > Or we are defining a thing which solves the present bug, and

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

To further explore what would be involved if we did go down the TOML route, I posted an issue to give the pytoml developer(s) a heads up about this conversation: https://github.com/avakar/pytoml/issues/15 On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Here's that

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 7, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Couple thoughts. > > Firstly, the human-editable bit: who in the last *decade* has been > writing code using a non-syntax-aware/helping editor? Its a supremely > uninteresting aspect IMO. Unless you’re faced

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

Couple thoughts. Firstly, the human-editable bit: who in the last *decade* has been writing code using a non-syntax-aware/helping editor? Its a supremely uninteresting aspect IMO. On ConfigParser - yes, its horrid. OTOH we do get all the lines reliably, and setuptools will need to cover the

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 7, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Sat, 7 May 2016 at 07:49 Nick Coghlan > wrote: > > On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" > wrote: > > > > Here's that one-stop

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Sat, 7 May 2016 at 07:49 Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > > > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration > > languages that I mentioned: > > > >

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 7 May 2016 13:00, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration > languages that I mentioned: > > https://gist.github.com/njsmith/78f68204c5d969f8c8bc645ef77d4a8f Thanks for that, and "yikes" on the comment handling

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

TOML-LD might work for representing JSONLD, as well. http://json-ld.org/#developers * https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib-jsonld * https://github.com/digitalbazaar/pyld JSON-LD as a target makes sense because we're describing nodes (with attributes) and edges in a package graph. On Sat, May 7,

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On May 6, 2016 10:14 PM, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > While I personally prefer YAML to any of the options on a purely syntax based > level, when you weigh in all the other considerations for this I think that it > makes sense to go with TOML for it. I feel the same way. I use

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

+1 for YAML YAML-LD (YAML & JSONLD) would make expressing the actual graphs for what could be "#PEP426JSONLD" much easier. https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/issues/31 On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Alex Grönholm wrote: > +1. I don't think the pathological

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

A missing dimension for comparison: round tripping support. It is quite useful for formats when used as a configuration. The best I know in that dimension is yaml (if using ruamel.yaml), which round trip comments. OTOH, adding round tripping to something like toml should not be too hard if the

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On 7 May 2016 at 04:14, Donald Stufft wrote: > While I personally prefer YAML to any of the options on a purely syntax based > level, when you weigh in all the other considerations for this I think that it > makes sense to go with TOML for it. > > The only other option I think

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

@python.org] On Behalf Of Alex Grönholm Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2016 4:29 AM To: distutils-sig@python.org Subject: Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages +1. I don't think the pathological cases of YAML syntax are of any concern in this context. Plus it has excellent tooling support

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

+1. I don't think the pathological cases of YAML syntax are of any concern in this context. Plus it has excellent tooling support, unlike TOML. 07.05.2016, 09:25, Fred Drake kirjoitti: On May 6, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On May 6, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration > languages that I mentioned: > > https://gist.github.com/njsmith/78f68204c5d969f8c8bc645ef77d4a8f Thank you for this! A very nice summary. On Fri, May

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: [...] > The only other option I think that could work is what Chris (I think?) > suggested and just use a Python literal evaluated using ``ast.literal_eval()`` Oh, good point, that should definitely be on the list of options

Re: [Distutils] comparison of configuration languages

> On May 6, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > Here's that one-stop writeup/comparison of all the major configuration > languages that I mentioned: > > https://gist.github.com/njsmith/78f68204c5d969f8c8bc645ef77d4a8f > > -n > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith --