On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: > On 6/22/12 9:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé<ta...@ziade.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/22/12 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> I don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they >>> are >>> suitable for multi-line variables etc. (see zc.buildout) >>> >>> yaml vs ini vs xxx seems to be an implementation detail, and my take on >>> this >>> is that we have ConfigParser in the stdlib >> >> You can't do more than one layer of nested data structures cleanly >> with an ini-style solution, and some aspects of packaging are just >> crying out for metadata that nests more deeply than that. The >> setup.cfg format for specifying installation layouts doesn't even come >> *close* to being intuitively readable - using a format with better >> nesting support has some hope of fixing that, since filesystem layouts >> are naturally hierarchical. >> >> A JSON based format would also be acceptable to me from a functional >> point of view, although in that case, asking people to edit it >> directly would be cruel - you would want to transform it to YAML in >> order to actually read it or write it. > > > I still think this is an implementation detail, and that ini can work here, > as they have proven to work with buildout and look very clean to me.
Yeah, and I later realised that RPM also uses a flat format. I think nested is potentially cleaner, but that's the kind of thing a PEP can thrash out. > I am now wondering why we don't have a yaml module in the stdlib btw :) ini-style is often good enough, and failing that there's json. Or, you just depend on PyYAML :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
