On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 13:44:48 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:43:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-11-25 11:17, Suliman wrote:
[...]
BTW, why was not TOML [1] chosen? I know it was discussed but
I can't remember why SDL was preferred. I think TOML is more
widely used than SDL [2]. GitLib CI multi runner is also
using it.
[1] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml
[2] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml#projects-using-toml
TOML looks nice, _but_ it's version 0.4.0. We cannot afford to
maintain a parser for a format that hasn't "settled down" yet.
If it's good enough for Rust, it's good enough for us.
No, because we have to write a parser and update it every time
TOML changes. Since it's only 0.4 you can expect it to change a
lot till 1.0. We already have a solid JSON parser and JSON has
settled down. But it doesn't matter, TOML will not happen any
time soon so let's not waste our energy on this. We've wasted
enough on this thread already.
It's weird how the minor issues that could be fixed in an instant
always cause flamewars. I say, let's just revert to JSON as
standard format and provide a converter (as I and others have
suggested). That should end the discussion.
