Rustom Mody a écrit : > yaml by its indent-orientation is quite pythonic. In comparison xml > is cumbersome and laborious. > > Strangely ruby supports yaml out of the box but python requires a > third party package PyYAML. > > Now this may not seem like a big deal for us -- installing pyYAML > takes all of one minute -- but it may not be so to others as I > recently learned. > > I conducted a python training for a corporate in which I showed among > other things that yaml is much neater than xml. They agreed that it > was neat but were reluctant to consider it because it adds dependency > headaches at a later point with their customers. > > So is it likely that yaml will make it to the standard python library > at some point??
"dependency headaches" ? AFAICT from the project's site, pyYAML is a pure Python package, and the only requirement mentioned is Python 2.3. Compared to some products often in use in "corporate" environment, I wouldn't call this a "dependency headaches". Not that I disagree with the idea of including pyYAML in the standard lib - this would be in pahse with the "batteries included" philosophie IMHO - but then, what about python-json ? FWIW, JSON being another pretty good alternative to XML, and probably more used than YAML, thanks to the Ajax/Web2.0 madness. But anyway, the inclusion of a package in the standard lib is a somehow formalized process (cf pep 0002 [1]), supposed to be initiated by the package's maintainers. So if you want this to happen for pyYAML, you'll first have to talk about it with the project's leaders. [1] http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0002/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
