On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:47:06AM +0900, 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. t 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.

They cover some of it.  The tests are, erm, sparse.  It is on my radar for
compatibility though.  :-)

> 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.

I only changed syck tests for YAML incompatibilities.  The rest of the
API remains the same (so far).  IMHO, permitting syntax that isn't in
the YAML spec is a bug.

> 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.

Agreed.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/