2009/11/12 5:47, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Aaron Patterson
> <aaron / tenderlovemaking.com>  wrote:
>> Yes, it definitely needs more documentation.  It passes *most* of the
>> current Syck tests, although syck supports some syntax that isn't
>> allowed by the YAML spec.
>
> Do the Syck tests cover all the pluggable emitter stuff too? We were
> never able to be totally compatible with Syck's API until Ola did a
> straight-up port of Syck for JRuby 1.4. The emitter stuff was the
> hardest, and it's used inside Rails in various places so we didn't
> really have a choice to not support it.

Yes, compatibility is very important.
But we gave up maintaining syck; so there are not so many options.
If someone contribute tests for syck, it will help Aaron's new impl
unless Aaron give up compatibility.

> We also ran into the YAML incompatibility issues on a regular basis,
> usually punting the bugs as not being YAML compliant. Bottom line is
> that Syck is too permissive and its API exposes a lot of how it's
> implemented internally, and that's hard to escape.

This is not a consensus Ruby core team but I think,
compatibility to YAML spec is more important than syck compatibility.
So new impl should follow standard YAML spec even if it breaks Rails.
# of course such changes should notice to public

> Hopefully any breakage or API changes will be discussed first with
> other implementations that have done a lot of work to match the
> current YAML impl.

I fully agree this, we should disscuss such changes
before they have done.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse / airemix.jp>