| 1 |
On 15 February 2016 at 00:37, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Or JSON, or YAML, or whatever |
| 3 |
> is trendy now. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I would love a JSON form. I tried doing my own stuff with XML and I |
| 7 |
gave up in the complexity factory I found myself building around it :( |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Just ... not YAML. The YAML spec is much less well defined and much |
| 10 |
less "regular", and much less ubiquitous as a transport. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
And if you standardize on JSON, JSON is valid YAML 1.2, but not vice versa. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And so as long as you don't do any cute things like permit different |
| 15 |
structures in the same slots like: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
{ author => "foo@×××.com" } |
| 18 |
{ author => { email => "foo@×××.com" , name => ... }} |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You'll be fine, Because you get nice messes when code expects a value |
| 21 |
to be a hash instead of a scalar and try to keep the data |
| 22 |
self-consistent. Its just not worth the programming expense in every |
| 23 |
single implementation just to provide a little sugar syntax. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Kent |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives