[crdoconnor]

Fair enough.

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]

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]

>What other ways do you have in mind that would be a viable replacement?

Where there is not very much repetition required, simply use repetition instead (e.g. in the above example I would just copy & paste use-db to the relevant locations). The increased readability makes it worth the repetition where there's not a lot of it.

Where there is a lot of repetition I'd consider that a bug or feature required in the schema and would refactor the YAML schema and the parsing code so that less repetition is necessary for most configs.

I don't consider the above CI config particularly easy to understand and even with the node anchors and references there's a bunch of repetition (e.g spinach 1, spinach 2, spinach 3, etc.). That's partly because of the node anchors and references. It would look better if they refactored the schema.

[cm3]

> repetition (e.g spinach 1, spinach 2, spinach 3, etc.)

Without a looping or sequence construct, this will be hard to avoid, and once you go that route, you might as well adopt a Lisp as your config syntax.

Before there was XML, there was SGML, and SGML has DSSSL, which was a Scheme dialect, and that was a brilliant idea which has been ditched for XML and its surrounding specs. S-Expressions are natural for the task. There are still prominent uses of S-Expressions, even in the OCaml world, where Jane Street uses it for configuration and serialization.

The full power of a Lisp may be too much and risky, but you can restrict the spec and allow only certain constructs, so that you can ensure it will evaluate to a result in a quick and deterministic way.

The little "templating" feature used in gitlab-ci.yml is a huge benefit, and as long as parsers limit the feature, it's a good compromise between complexity and comfort.

There is a lot of experience with using Lisp for configuration, and that experience can be leveraged to come up with a good S-Expressions based config format that's flexible, deterministic, and known to terminate in constant time. If you're careful with the spec, you could even validate the config fully.

[cm3]

So, I'm actually surprised no Lisp dialect has gained popularity in the modern web stacks for configuration. Maybe if Clojure were more popular and less XML-influenced from the JVM world. Just thinking out loud.