On 3/17/2018 3:38 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:3. Some other similar format. YAML comes to mind. Last time I looked (quite a while ago), it seemed insanely complex, but I think you could implement only a reasonable subset. OTOH, I think the tools ecosystem for parsing JSON (e.g., jq) is much better.I would personally avoid YAML. It's "easier" for humans to read/parse, but honestly JSON is already simple enough and anyone who writes C or javascript can likely parse and hand-write JSON anyways. YAML lacks built-in parsers for most languages, where as many scripting languages already have JSON parsing built in, or have more easily attainable libraries available. In contrast, the YAML libraries are much more complex and less likely to be available. That's just my own experience at $dayjob though.
Agreed. I just looked at the spec for it and I think it would be harder for us to be assured we are generating valid output with leading whitespace being significant (without a lot more inspection of the strings being passed down to us). Jeff
