use Perl

• Not enough! (Score:1)

  by srezic (8057) on 2008.01.10 8:32 (#60119) Journal

  I am still not satisfied. For me the namespace was never a problem, as it reminded me of another markup language with a tiny counterpart, namely SVG and SVG-Tiny. And as "-" is not a valid character for a module name I found it quite natually that it is replaced by "::".

  What bothers me more is that I don't know what is YAML::Tiny supposed to parse. It is not yet specified. I think there should be a written spec first.

  And then further problems: the META.yml specification clearly says that META.yml should be written in the YAML format. This means one can easily create correct meaningful META.yml which cannot be parsed by YAML::Tiny, see the still unanswered RT ticket [cpan.org]. This is just one problem, others are probably there.

  So what to do? We could change the META.yml specification and explicitely allow only the YAML-Tiny format (which needs to be specified, see above). I think this would not be the worst move. The full YAML spec is really huge and it is probably unnecessary to support all of the spec in this case.

  Or we can just put the whole of YAML::Syck or YAML into the perl core. After all, it is not that huge (maybe 1% of the current size of the perl core), and having YAML in the core would not be too bad. I don't consider having the syck library in the core to be a problem, unless there are some licensing issues.

  Reply to This

  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    Writing a spec for the format supported by YAML::Tiny seems like a sound idea, actually. Restricting META.yml to that subset of YAML, once written, sounds like a better choice to me than putting libsyck in the core. Dual-life modules are “interesting” enough without throwing XS into the mix.
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Alias (5735)

    There is a LOT more resistance to having significant third-party C libraries in the core, compared to what I've done.
    
    As for a YAML-Tiny spec, I'll try to knock something up.