From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-09-09T17:13:09+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In message "Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0"
>> >     on 03/09/09, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>> >
>> > |Much easier than I thought. I'll bet there are some gotchas,
>> > |though.
>> > |
>> > |Matz??
>> >
>> > Yes?  It is hard for me to merge this, because
>> >
>> >   * it's no better than e.g. "y %{foo: bar}".
>> >   * it's against my policy of "syntax should be stable".
>> >
>> > I agree with usefulness of user-defined literals, and this is much
>> disciplined than generic reader macros, but still we need to discuss
>> pros and cons.
>> >
>> > 							matz.
>>
>> A thought occurred to me.  If %y{foo: bar} is seen as desirable as a
>> short and simple way of declaring a YAML literal, what about this
>> instead?
>>
>>   YAML{foo: bar}
>
> def Y(txt)
> 	YAML.load txt
> end
>
> Y %{bla: foo}
> => {"bla"=>"foo"}
>
> OTOH this might scare people who think "... combinator" whenever they
> see Y.
>

Yes, on seeing Nobu's reply and Dave's independent contribution, I
definitely think

  YAML %{
    as
    many
    lines
    as
    you
    like
  }

is the way to go.  It's orthogonal, which is my favourite word.

Note: not Y %{...}, but YAML %{...}.  Y is an unjustified shortcut, IMO.

Gavin (who loves Ruby's quoting mechanisms and hates writing SQL queries
in Java)