On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:50:02AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> 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.

I do not plan to give up compatibility, except where Syck deviates from
the YAML spec.

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