Which TOML package, or SDLang?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 03:59:52PM +0000, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 15:37:56 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> > Why not XML? :) It has comments, you can use backslashes too.
> 
> no kidding, xml is an underrated format.

XML is evil.

Let me qualify that statement.  XML, as specified by the XML spec, is
pure evil.  It has some absolutely nasty corners that has pathological
behaviours like recursive expansion of entities (exploitable for DOS
attacks or to induce OOM crashes in XML parsers), which includes
token-pasting style pathology like C's preprocessor, and remote fetching
of arbitrary network resources (which, no thanks to pathological
entities, can be easily obfuscated).

XML as used by casual users, however, is a not-bad format for markup
text.  It's far too verbose for my tastes, but for some applications it
could be a good fit.  As far as implementation is concerned, a
(non-compliant) XML parser that implements the subset of XML employed
for "normal" use, i.e., without the pathological bits, would be a good
thing, e.g., Jonathan's dxml.  A fully-compliant XML parser that
includes the pathological bits, however, I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot
pole.


T

-- 
Customer support: the art of getting your clients to pay for your own incompetence.