On 5/17/2021 4:29 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
On 15 May 2021, at 23:39, Jason C. McDonald <codemous...@outlook.com> wrote:
During the Steering Committee presentation at PyCon, it was mentioned
that no one has formally proposed TOML be added to the standard library
(emphasis on formal). THe joke went forth that there would be a flood
of proposals to that end.
So, just to kick this off while the thought is still fresh in a bunch of
people's minds: **should we add a TOML parser to the standard library**?
The main reason this matters is to help encourage adoption of the now
PEP-standardized pyproject.toml. A few projects have cited the lack of
a standardized TOML implementation in the standard library as a reason
not to adopt pyproject.toml...and the topic thus became weirdly
political.
I understand that Brett Cannon intends to bring this up at the next
language summit, but, ah, might as well put the community two-cents in
now, hey?
I, for one, feel like this is obvious.
I think the python ideas list is a better place to have this discussion.
I disagree. Rehashing *opinions* is pretty useless. The issues were
already discussed on
https://discuss.python.org/t/adopting-recommending-a-toml-parser/4068
There are multiple packages. There is no consensus on which to pick,
*if any*. Existing modules apparently include writers, which are
necessarily opinionated (as is formatting of C, Python, html, ...). As
I just noted in the discussion, the stdlib does not have an html writer.
So if we want just a parser, maybe we should generate one from the
grammar. Then there are broader 'What should be in the stdlib discussions.
If anyone has *new information* about toml, post it there.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
