3 ms·

i wonder if the people who worked on the YAML spec regret not string wrapping stuff? i’m sure it was by design “at the time”?

• tyingq 4y ago
  The spec says this: "The plain (unquoted) style has no identifying indicators and provides no form of escaping. It is therefore the most readable, most limited and most context sensitive style." Which reads to me that they expected people to treat the plain style as a convenience that had notable downsides. Edit: Note that this is the "plain" style, where there's also single and double quoted styles.
  • tgv 4y ago
    A reasonable choice (in contrast to "no" or "null"). YAML is simply not a format for all use cases. It's good enough for many tasks, and more readable than most other formats where it fits.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > YAML is simply not a format for all use cases. Maybe, but unquoted strings not being the right choice for all use cases (or, similarly, structure-by-indentation not being) doesn’t show that, since YAML supports unquoted and quoted strings, and supports both indent-sensitive “block style” and delimiter-based “flow style”.
      • tgv 4y ago
        To me, it doesn't fit where people with a less technical background can/must edit configuration files, or where there's a large risk of mixing up null and "null". For readability, it's fine, except for the ugly node reference syntax.