[cfe-dev] RFC: YAML as an intermediate format for clang::tooling::Replacement data on disk

[Nico Weber]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru>wrote:
>
>>
>> 01.08.2013, 17:59, "Manuel Klimek" <klimek at google.com>:
>> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Vane, Edwin <edwin.vane at intel.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Alex Rosenberg [mailto:alexr at ohmantics.com]
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:32 AM
>> >>> To: Vane, Edwin
>> >>> Cc: Clang Dev List (cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu)
>> >>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: YAML as an intermediate format for
>> >>> clang::tooling::Replacement data on disk
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>> I have wanted for some time for rewriter tools to use diff output
>> that can be
>> >>> used with existing review tools. If a merge tool is created that
>> generates diff, I'd
>> >>> probably be less concerned, but I'd still want a way to handle this
>> self-contained
>> >>> in the LLVM/Clang frameworks without a separate merge process.
>> >>
>> >> This can still happen. What you're describing is orthogonal to this
>> proposal about using YAML as an intermediate representation of serialized
>> data between the migrator and replacement coalescing tool. I don't think
>> anything here will block your desire from coming true.
>> >>
>> >> Speaking of JSON, this was suggested on IRC. It seems like it would be
>> just as fine as YAML for this situation since there's no need for
>> references or comments (yet, anyway). However, LLVM has no generic JSON
>> parser, just a specific implementation for compilation databases. The YAML
>> reader/writer that LLVM provides is completely generic and available right
>> now even if it provides some features we don't need.
>> >
>> > Note that the compilation databases use the YAML parser. JSON is a
>> subset of YAML. I'd also (slightly) prefer to use JSON over YAML for the
>> intermediate representation.
>>
>> Why? YAML has less syntactic overhead.
>>
>
> JSON is significantly simpler, and there's only "one way" to express
> something. That will be all I contribute to the bike-shedding - I also
> think it doesn't really matter much ...
>

Also, more languages have built-in json parsers. Built-in yaml parsers are
less common.


>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130801/20f90c4e/attachment.html>