On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Simon Urbanek
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This is getting OT, but, please, no XML. It's entirely useless in this
> context IMHO (as it is in others, but that's another story) and we already
> have reliable support for storing R objects (more than one in fact). Despite
> the fact that some used to claim human readability of XML in practice it
> turns out to be false, so I don't see any real benefits of XML in this
> context.
Yes, I agree. Originally I was hoping to have a nice
human-and-computer readable config.ini file:
[options]
contrasts = structure(list(contrasts = structure(c("contr.treatment",
"contr.poly"
), .Names = c("unordered", "ordered"))), .Names = "contrasts")
but the lack of an ini parser in R made me think "heck, let's do it in
something we do have a parser for...".
maybe I should use JSON? Yeah, we have a parser and that's what all
the hipster web 3.0 kids are using these days....
Barry
--
blog: http://geospaced.blogspot.com/
web: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings
web: http://www.rowlingson.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/geospacedman
pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spacedman
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
