it would be a great idea if you pass a file as parameter...

[trixpan]

Pipes are great but not always handy and in certain ways, shouldn't truly be necessary if instead a "file.open" was used.

[vaab]

Hi, my first go was to avoid making argument parsing complicated. I wanted to avoid all the hassle. I know that there are marvelous library existing to parse the command line, and maybe I should go to choose one of them now.

Thou, I'm curious of which case you couldn't use pipes. I can't realy see an example. And pipes are often much more agile to use. You don't have to work on files. And writing temporary files is cumbersome.

Anyway, I think your request is valid, and that shyaml probably need to have the ability to read directly its input from file. Any PR going into this direction is encouraged.

I may not work on it myself now, as I don't have many time, and I consider this as a new feature, and not something really impeding the use of shyaml. (unless you can find me good examples where you can't use stdin to feed shyaml).

[paleozogt]

Here's a use-case that pipes makes pretty hard: using find, xargs, and shyaml. With a command-line file input, this is easy:

find . -iname \*.yaml | xargs -Ifile shyaml --file file get-value foo.bar

but with the pipe requirement, you have to do something like

find . -iname \*.yaml | xargs -file cat file | shyaml get-value foo.bar

which doesn't work, because the pipe syntax is ambiguous.

[vaab]

I would suggest using:

find . -iname \*.yaml | while read file; do cat "$file" | shyaml get-value foo.bar; done

Anyway, I'm still in favor to add a command line argument to shyaml.