YAML does provide additional power over JSON when it comes to serialization (in the form of !tags), so it seems that by using the same API you'd be giving up some power. Of course, if you decide to stick to the JSON subset and just use YAML for more readable syntax, the same API will work fine. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:

YAML does provide additional power over JSON when it comes to serialization (in the form of !tags), so it seems that by using the same API you'd be giving up some power. Of course, if you decide to stick to the JSON subset and just use YAML for more readable syntax, the same API will work fine.

Have fun,

Oren Ben-Kiki

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:

...

* Michael Snoyman [2012-12-07 11:51:40+0200]

...

...

As for toYAML/toJSON, I guess most of the time they are different anyway — otherwise it's defeating the purpose of YAML to be more human-readable than JSON.

I don't think that's true in practice. Most of the readability of YAML comes from the syntax, not the choice of actual serialization structure. But I could be mistaken.

Not the serialization structure, no.

I meant that YAML has some flexibility in syntax, which probably should be exploited by the instance writer to improve readability.

For that you'd need a sufficiently adjustable pretty-printer, but that also means that you can't reuse ToJSON.

Roman

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries