November 17
On Sunday, 17 November 2019 at 16:26:45 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 November 2019 at 23:33:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Also, this, apparently, should lead to the fact that dud will have their own package description format. Almost inevitable. (This has already been discussed, perhaps.)

SDL all the way please.

November 18
On Sunday, 17 November 2019 at 19:10:05 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 at 16:26:45 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 November 2019 at 23:33:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
>> Also, this, apparently, should lead to the fact that dud will have their own package description format. Almost inevitable. (This has already been discussed, perhaps.)
>
> SDL all the way please.

Yes please
November 18
On Sunday, 17 November 2019 at 19:10:05 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:

> SDL all the way please.

Perhaps this ship has already sail. But YAML would have been a better choice. It's a superset of JSON. All the existing JSON description files would have worked as is.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

November 18
On Sun, 2019-11-17 at 19:10 +0000, Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 at 16:26:45 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 November 2019 at 23:33:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
> > (Abscissa) wrote:
> > Also, this, apparently, should lead to the fact that dud will
> > have their own package description format. Almost inevitable.
> > (This has already been discussed, perhaps.)
> 
> SDL all the way please.

Is SDL the right format? Cargo uses TOML to great effect.

And TOML has, I suspect greater traction more widely than SDL.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



November 18
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 08:57:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Is SDL the right format? Cargo uses TOML to great effect.
>
> And TOML has, I suspect greater traction more widely than SDL.

I personally prefer SDL when it comes to nested data, but yeah, that would work as well.

The point I was making is to just have 1 format. With dud that should be possible.
November 18
On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 09:31 +0000, Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 08:57:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Is SDL the right format? Cargo uses TOML to great effect.
> > 
> > And TOML has, I suspect greater traction more widely than SDL.
> 
> I personally prefer SDL when it comes to nested data, but yeah, that would work as well.
> 
> The point I was making is to just have 1 format. With dud that should be possible.

For me the argument is that SDL and TOML are intended for human's to write configuration scripts, whilst XML and JSON are intended for computers to send data to other computers.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



November 18
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 09:42:16 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 09:31 +0000, Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 08:57:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> > Is SDL the right format? Cargo uses TOML to great effect.
>> > 
>> > And TOML has, I suspect greater traction more widely than SDL.
>> 
>> I personally prefer SDL when it comes to nested data, but yeah, that would work as well.
>> 
>> The point I was making is to just have 1 format. With dud that should be possible.
>
> For me the argument is that SDL and TOML are intended for human's to write configuration scripts, whilst XML and JSON are intended for computers to send data to other computers.

A win-win move would be to have dud emit the other formats automatically as part of the compilation procedure, so to have always all of them present and synced on the content.

It shouldn't be too much difficult, and maybe it's a cleaver way to move on from discussions about different formats.
November 18
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 09:53:56 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> A win-win move would be to have dud emit the other formats automatically as part of the compilation procedure, so to have always all of them present and synced on the content.

I already regret starting about this. Instead of rooting for the SDL format, I should have just recommended to deprecate the json one.
November 18
On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 10:26 +0000, Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 09:53:56 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> > A win-win move would be to have dud emit the other formats automatically as part of the compilation procedure, so to have always all of them present and synced on the content.
> 
> I already regret starting about this. Instead of rooting for the SDL format, I should have just recommended to deprecate the json one.

I do not think you should regret starting a discussion on this.

Personally I only ever use SDL with Dub. Even contemplating using JSON for human written configuration files is, for me, totally the wrong thing to do.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



November 18
On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 09:53 +0000, Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
[…]
> A win-win move would be to have dud emit the other formats automatically as part of the compilation procedure, so to have always all of them present and synced on the content.

Why? In fact, why even think of doing this at all?

There should be one and only one human written configuration file for a build and it should be in a notation suitable for being written by humans.

> It shouldn't be too much difficult, and maybe it's a cleaver way to move on from discussions about different formats.

Again why? It seems like a pointless overhead that achieves nothing constructive.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9