Tina Müller (tinita)

@bbrouwer > but it doesn't introduce any new reserved symbols Well, it does introduce new syntax. The plain scalar `-*foo` is perfectly fine currently. If I rewrite your example: ```...

> Don't mix the use for your your specific use cases with the general framework I think this is also a good example why introducing a specific programmatic element is...

@ssbarnea If I added a merge-list feature similar to merge keys, I would just concatenate the lists. Anything more complicated needs something like a templating (jinja for example) or a...

Look, if you suggest a new syntax (and both @jcpunk and @muuvmuuv did that), please implement it in one of the existing YAML parsers first. It's a useless discussion, if...

@muuvmuuv > which does not introduce new syntax That would mean there are no necessary changes to a YAML parser. But that's wrong.

> @perlpunk "merging list" it's not necessarily programmatic. The way I see it, it is purely declarative. Well, whatever this means for you in this context - it is a...

@bughit I know

1. I think the behaviour should reflect *either* the one from YAML 1.1, or one of the YAML 1.2 schemas. A mixture is unfortunate, and it will never be in...

I don't know why binary was dropped. But for underscores, it turned out that it didn't make sense the way it was defined for 1.1 (and the regular expression would...

This is an edge case. The spec is not very clear on that. @flyx mentioned that he had been asking about that on the mailing list two years ago: https://sourceforge.net/p/yaml/mailman/message/34909032/...