It does seem to be a rarely used feature though. Furthermore it confuses non-programmers who otherwise are happy with YAML (I've tested this, it really does).
Given all of this, and given that what it does can be easily achieved in other ways that don't require the feature, I think it's a net negative overall to have it in the spec.
I may be rarely used, generally speaking, but it's used a lot in CI configs. The linked example is the typical use case, and it's documented in both CI services' config section.
I'm certain this feature is a major reason why YAML was chosen for CI config over TOML or JSON, and the way it's used in those config files is, as I said, _not_ recursive, so the issue discussed here isn't relevant. Rejecting recursive definitions can be a sensible improvement.
What other ways do you have in mind that would be a viable replacement?
crdoconnor|9 years ago
It does seem to be a rarely used feature though. Furthermore it confuses non-programmers who otherwise are happy with YAML (I've tested this, it really does).
Given all of this, and given that what it does can be easily achieved in other ways that don't require the feature, I think it's a net negative overall to have it in the spec.
cm3|9 years ago
I'm certain this feature is a major reason why YAML was chosen for CI config over TOML or JSON, and the way it's used in those config files is, as I said, _not_ recursive, so the issue discussed here isn't relevant. Rejecting recursive definitions can be a sensible improvement.
What other ways do you have in mind that would be a viable replacement?