Hi,
Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> The main point here for me is that the JSON format is already
>> parseable by YAML parsers, and can probably be turned into YAML using
>> a very short Perl script - possibly even using a sed script. I think
>> that it's overkill to support two formats that are that similar.
>>
> It's not the case that JSON can be turned into YAML or that it just happens
> that it can be parsed by YAML parsers. While there was some possible
> divergence in earlier versions, a JSON 1.2 document *is* in YAML format
> already. JSON is actually a subset of YAML that uses one of the many
> possible YAML styles--basically, YAML accepts anything in JSON format, along
> with others. This means that by providing JSON output, we've *already*
> provided YAML output, too. Just not the nice looking output people tend to
> associate with YAML.
Well we have JSON and agreed it was a good idea to have it. Now JSON is
a subset of YAML and some would prefer another YAML style (me included).
If the problem is supporting 2 formats in core rather than 3, what about
replacing the current JSON support with the YAML one?
At a later point we could even have JSON support back by having the YAML
printer able to output different YAML styles, but I guess that's not
where we are now.
Vote: +1 for YAML even if that means dropping JSON.
Regards,
--
dim