From: "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...[REMOVE_THE_SPAM]>
Date: 2003-09-10T02:05:45+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0

Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>>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.

I might be naive on this subject, but what's wrong with just using HERE 
documents?  You can send them to any method you want.  They're already 
100% flexible, as far as I know, and perfectly readable.  What do we 
gain by adding special %{} syntax to the language?

	Sean O'Dell