Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • There is a typo in your URL's. They are missing a c in search.
  • My YAML::Syck only takes 271k... :-)
    • ... and a C compiler :)

      I'm terribly impressed with YAML::Syck, but I look at the entirity of the YAML spec and there's an enormous amount of, well, STUFF.

      Does it handle all of the spec?
      • Yes. Syck is the most complete implementation of YAML. :-)
        • Hmm... but how much of the spec is that?

          I note for example that the documentation explicitly says it doesn't handle circular references. It there anything else like that?
          • Where does it say that? That's already solved long ago. :-) The only two unsupported features is "Force the Merge Key" and "Force Comments". See [] for details. I've added Unicode support beyond what libsyck originally offers.
            • Wow, thanks for the reminder; I have forgotten to push the new release (that handles circular refs and has been tested to be 5.005-compatible) to CPAN. 0.42 has been uploaded. Thanks for the reminder. :)
  • You read my CPANRatings review, didn’t you?

  • Be sure to check in with the Module::Build email list. Right now, they are discussing making a mini-YAML to bundle with M::B. Coordinating efforts would be valuable, I suspect.
  • How does YAML compare to XML in terms of heaviness, then? I thought YAML was supposed to be a lightweight configuration language. If not, then I really don't see why people wouldn't just use XML or .ini-style config files.
    • YAML’s syntax is very lightweight, but extremely complex. If you only use the simple constructs, it ends up looking very clean and human-readable, but there are a lot of complex (ie. hard to explain to non-techies) constructs, and they all rely on funny (read: obfuscatory) punctuation.

      XML has rather heavyweight syntax, but there are far fewer constructs than YAML has. It’s not really designed for rigidly and heavily structured things like data structures; it lends itself much better to

    • If I can use the machine-readable vs geek-readable vs human-readable differentation, then I can sum up the difference as the following.

      Binary file formats are machine-readable, but NOT geek-readable or human-readable.

      This makes them small and compact, but very hard for developers to handle and work with, because it requires you be highly intimate to do anything at all.

      XML is machine-readable AND geek-readable, but not human-readable. The format is designed for machines, but are done in a human-enough way t
  • I have meaning to read YAML spec too. My first impression of YAML was that it was garbage.

    When I go to I see no rationale for why it was invented. Is it better than XML? A substitute?

    I only see an example []

    Which depending on taste is better or worse than XML. I think it is worse because of & | * >

    • One thing I do like YAML for is doing a Data::Phrasebook type config. I used to have my SQL queries in an XML file but you have to change the > and

      Other than that...I would use XML.