Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

In message <4b8b5cef$0$1625$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, John Nagle wrote: > Patrick Maupin wrote: >> >> Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to >> manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started >> work on a new configuration file parser. > >

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Robert Kern writes: >> Markdown, Textile, or possibly Creole;... > I believe ReST predates all of those mentioned. Texinfo and POD are certainly older than ReST. I'm not sure about MediaWiki markup, but it's gotten so much traction that Markdown should probably be abandoned in its favor even if

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 2010-03-05 17:59 PM, Chris Rebert wrote: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Aahz mailto:a...@pythoncraft.com>> wrote: > In article <7xwrxv4vv7@ruckus.brouhaha.com >, > Paul Rubin wrote: >> >>ReST is another abomination that should never have got

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steven D'Aprano wrote: I use footnotes all the time[1] in plain text documents and emails. I don't think there's anything bizarre about it at all. It's not the use of footnotes I'm talking about, it's the cryptic character sequences used to mark them up in ReST. Nobody would come up with them

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Aahz wrote: > In article <7xwrxv4vv7@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, > Paul Rubin wrote: >> >>ReST is another abomination that should never have gotten off the >>ground. It is one of the reasons I react so negatively to your >>config format proposal. It just sounds li

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

In article <7xwrxv4vv7@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin wrote: > >ReST is another abomination that should never have gotten off the >ground. It is one of the reasons I react so negatively to your >config format proposal. It just sounds like more of the same. Really? What should we use ins

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steve Howell wrote: On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: We already have to deal with XML. So using XML for config files doesn't require anyone to deal with any lousy formats that they didn't have to deal with before. So the basic answer to your question about well-established standards is y

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > > Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this issue or else they > don't.  JSON (as currently defined) is a machine-to-machine > serialization format and just isn't that good a choice for handwritten > files.  Adding a comment specification is a small

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:06 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote: > >> Paul Rubin wrote: >>> ReST was another solution in search of a problem. >> >> I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. understanding as >> markup various typographical conventions that make sens

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:06 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> ReST was another solution in search of a problem. > > I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. understanding as > markup various typographical conventions that make sense in plain text, > such as underli

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steve Howell writes: >> Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments. > > If you don't control the JSON standard, providing a compelling > alternative to JSON might be the best way to force JSON to accomodate > a wider audience. Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this i

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 4, 9:36 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > ReST was another solution in search of a problem. > > I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. > understanding as markup various typographical conventions > that make sense in plain text, such as underlined > headings, b

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Paul Rubin wrote: ReST was another solution in search of a problem. I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. understanding as markup various typographical conventions that make sense in plain text, such as underlined headings, bullets, numbered paragraphs. Unfortunately it went o

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 4, 12:52 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > mk writes: > > OK, but how? How would you make up e.g. for JSON's lack of comments? > > Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments. If you don't control the JSON standard, providing a compelling alternative to JSON might be the best way to

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

mk writes: > OK, but how? How would you make up e.g. for JSON's lack of comments? Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments. > OTOH, if YAML produces net benefit for as few as, say, 200 people in > real world, the effort to make it has been well worth it. Not if 200,000 other

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steve Howell wrote: Somewhere in the 2020s, though, I predict that a lot of technologies are either going to finally die off, or at least be restricted to the niches that they serve well. Take Java, for example. I think it will be still be used, and people will still even be writing new program

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 3, 7:46 am, mk wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > Patrick Maupin writes: > >> One of my complaints.  If you had read the document you would have > >> seen others.  I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I > >> tried to write a cogent summary. > > Yaml sucks, but seems to have gotte

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Paul Rubin wrote: Patrick Maupin writes: One of my complaints. If you had read the document you would have seen others. I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I tried to write a cogent summary. Yaml sucks, but seems to have gotten some traction regardless. Therefore the Python

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 2, 9:20 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 2, 5:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: You seem to be taking the position that if you start with a config file config.json, it is "too hard to edit", but then by renaming it to config.rson it magically

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:35:20 -0800, Patrick Maupin wrote: > Yes, it is very confusing. Steven used that purported argument against > me, and then since I disagreed with it, it apparently meant that I was > arguing that changing the file extension type (which I've never even > proposed or discusse

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 2, 9:20 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: > Patrick Maupin wrote: > > On Mar 2, 5:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> You seem to be taking the position that if you start with a config file > >> config.json, it is "too hard to edit", but then by renaming it to > >> config.rs

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 2, 5:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: You seem to be taking the position that if you start with a config file config.json, it is "too hard to edit", but then by renaming it to config.rson it magically becomes easier to edit. That *is* ludicrous. No, but that seems to

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

* Patrick Maupin: On Mar 2, 5:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: You seem to be taking the position that if you start with a config file config.json, it is "too hard to edit", but then by renaming it to config.rson it magically becomes easier to edit. That *is* ludicrous. No, but that seems to be

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 2, 5:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > You seem to be taking the position that if you start with a config file > config.json, it is "too hard to edit", but then by renaming it to > config.rson it magically becomes easier to edit. That *is* ludicrous. No, but that seems to be the position you

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steven D'Aprano writes: > (3) which implies that all JSON files are valid RSON files. > > If you reject the logical conclusion that RSON must therefore also be too > hard to edit, then perhaps JSON isn't too hard to edit either. I would say that JSON is hard to edit because, among other things,

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:30:32 -0800, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:59 am, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> To me, comparing object notation with programming language is not >> helpful to the OP's purpose. > > Yes, I agree, it was a distraction. I fell into the trap of responding > to the ludicrou

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 2, 11:59 am, Terry Reedy wrote: > To me, comparing object notation with programming language is not > helpful to the OP's purpose. Yes, I agree, it was a distraction. I fell into the trap of responding to the ludicrous claim that "if X is a superset of Y, then X cannot possibly look bett

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 2010-03-02 11:59 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 3/2/2010 11:34 AM, Robert Kern wrote: On 2010-03-01 22:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: Patrick Maupin wrote: This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 3/2/2010 11:34 AM, Robert Kern wrote: On 2010-03-01 22:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: Patrick Maupin wrote: This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset" (as Python is most definitely no

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 2010-03-01 22:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: Patrick Maupin wrote: This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset" (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON), but

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

>> > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really >> > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We >> > don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet >> > another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml. >> >> And i

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Erik Max Francis writes: > Patrick Maupin wrote: >> On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too >> hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of >>> JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file. >>> Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is R

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: Patrick Maupin wrote: This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset" (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON), but Well, you are entitled to that opinion, bu

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Kirill Simonov wrote: BTW, congratulations on slogging through the YAML grammar to generate such a good working C library! That must have been a tremendous effort. The trick was to completely ignore the grammar described in the specifica

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: Kirill: Thank you for your constructive criticism. This is the gem that made it worthwhile to post my document. I think all of your points are spot-on, and I will be fixing the documentation. You are welcome. Despite what others have been saying, I don't think this ar

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Kirill Simonov wrote: BTW, congratulations on slogging through the YAML grammar to generate such a good working C library! That must have been a tremendous effort. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Kirill: Thank you for your constructive criticism. This is the gem that made it worthwhile to post my document. I think all of your points are spot-on, and I will be fixing the documentation. I can well believe that the C implementation of YAML is much faster than the Python one, but I am aimin

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: All: Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started work on a new configuration file parser. I'd like to note that with the optional libyaml bindings, the PyYAML parser is pretty

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Erik Max Francis wrote: Daniel Fetchinson wrote: it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to write a module that anybody would want to use; But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: > Patrick Maupin wrote: > This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset" > (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON), but Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but seriously, if I take valid JSON, replac

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 5:33 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote: > Psst.  That you're allowed to present the idea that you think is good > doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to respond and point out > that in their opinion it's not such a good idea.  You don't own this or > any other thread. Absolutely, but

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file. Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON. Well, Python is essentially a sup

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 12:03 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet another" because there's alr

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Daniel Fetchinson wrote: it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to write a module that anybody would want to use; But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We don't need anothe

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 3/1/2010 1:02 PM Philip Semanchuk said... * You had floppies? Bleddy luxury! We wrote our data on wood pulp we'd chewed ourselves and dried into paper, using drops of our own blood to represent 1s and 0s. You had left-over blood?!! Emile :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 2:42 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > Patrick Maupin writes: > > But for my use-case, YAML is irretrievably broken.  Sure, it looks > > reasonably nice, but it increases regression runtime unacceptably. > > How big are the files that you want to parse with it?  Sheesh. Tiny, but over and over.

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: Patrick Maupin writes: One of my complaints. If you had read the document you would have seen others. I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I tried to write a cogent summary. Yaml sucks, but seems to have gotten some traction rega

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin writes: > But for my use-case, YAML is irretrievably broken. Sure, it looks > reasonably nice, but it increases regression runtime unacceptably. How big are the files that you want to parse with it? Sheesh. > Well, I've looked at the YAML parser and I can assure you that I will

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 2:08 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > Yaml sucks, but seems to have gotten some traction regardless. Yes, that's actually one of the reasons I want to do this. I've heard that some of the YAML people want that in the standard library, and IMHO that would be a huge mistake. > Therefore the Pyt

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin writes: > One of my complaints. If you had read the document you would have > seen others. I actually have several complaints about YAML, but I > tried to write a cogent summary. Yaml sucks, but seems to have gotten some traction regardless. Therefore the Python principle of "the

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 1:37 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > There are in fact quite a few--json, yaml, .ini, xml, Python literals > (http://code.activestate.com/recipes/364469-safe-eval/), s-expressions, > actual Python code that the application can import, and so forth. Yes, I know about those. > The problem isn't

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin writes: > - There is a preexisting file format suitable for my needs, so I > should not invent another one. There are in fact quite a few--json, yaml, .ini, xml, Python literals (http://code.activestate.com/recipes/364469-safe-eval/), s-expressions, actual Python code that the appl

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 12:40 pm, Daniel Fetchinson wrote: > > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem.  The really > > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on.  We > > don't need another configuration language.  I can't even say "yet > > another" because there's alread

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

> > Certainly. The PEP format is a useful one. I've used it myself for some numpy > design documents. But can you see why people might get confused about your > intentions when you call it a draft PEP and post it to python-dev? If you stop > calling it a PEP and stop talking about putting it in the

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 12:03 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem.  The really > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on.  We > don't need another configuration language.  I can't even say "yet > another" because there's already a "yet anoth

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

>> it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to >> write a module that anybody would want to use; > > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We > don't need another configuratio

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin writes: > it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to > write a module that anybody would want to use; But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We don't need anoth

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 2010-03-01 11:34 , Patrick Maupin wrote: On Mar 1, 11:13 am, Robert Kern wrote: Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context managers. For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct.

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 11:13 am, Robert Kern wrote: > Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things > that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context > managers. > For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct. It needs to have a > useful > life as

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On 2010-03-01 10:08 , Patrick Maupin wrote: On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano Come back when you actually have MANY users other than yourself using this is real-world projects. Until then, it is too early to even consider adding it the std library. Python comes with batteries included, but n

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Mar 1, 12:39 am, John Nagle wrote: > Patrick Maupin wrote: > > All: > > > Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to > > manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started > > work on a new configuration file parser. > >     You're not supposed to e

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of > JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file. > Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON. Well, Python is essentially a superset of JSON, with st

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:39 PM, John Nagle wrote: > Patrick Maupin wrote: >> >> All: >> >> Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to >> manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started >> work on a new configuration file parser. > >   You're not s

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin wrote: All: Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started work on a new configuration file parser. You're not supposed to edit those formats manually.

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:09:30 -0600, Patrick Maupin wrote: > All: > > Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to > manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started > work on a new configuration file parser. > > I call the new format RSON (for "Reada

Re: Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin writes: > I have started work on a new configuration file parser > The documentation is in rst PEP form, at:... N not another... there are too many already. :-( -1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

All: Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started work on a new configuration file parser. I call the new format RSON (for "Readable Serial Object Notation"), and it is designed to be a superset of JSON