Can we rename Cargo.toml?

#21

projectname.cargo makes a lot more sense to me.

#22

True, albeit there is a catch. Format *.cargo is undefined while *.toml has specification.

#23

This is already violated by cargo. The Cargo.lock file has a .lock extension, but itā€™s clearly written in TOML.

#24

Iā€™d also argue that what goes in a cargo file is a lot more restricted than ā€œeh put any toml in thereā€, so the extension is already unhelpful in that sense in the first place.

#25

I see .jsons and .xml although I havenā€™t seen a place where you can just put any JSON or XML file. Itā€™s probably common that for general formats like these, the programs donā€™t accept any valid file.

#26

My visual studio C# projects live in .csproj files and not .xml files even tho on inspection with notepad theyā€™re actually xml files!

#27

im not against setup.cargo or projectname.cargo like .csproj. the extension defines the schema to be a cargo toml schema.

I sure wish that someone with authoritative power like wycats or Alex Chriton would comment hereā€¦

#28

I donā€™t see what you want to say with that. I havenā€™t said that all XML files have the file extension .xml, I said that some do.

wycats commented on Github (see first post).

#29

I know, I meant on this thread.

#30

Yeah, but Cargo.lock is explicitly computer generated*, so it not having a .toml extension is good. It being .toml helps the system recognize it as a TOML file, albeit one with a specific structure** while keeping the computer generated one without a recognizable extension.

*If I recall the documentation say your changes will be overwritten. ** This is par for the course, lots of config file with specific structure are written in .xml, .yaml, .json, etc.

#31

Another way of putting that is ā€œThe fact that the lock is toml is an implementation detail.ā€

#32

I prefer lower case names, and projectname.cargo seems fine assuming it being variable doesnā€™t result in cargo not finding it or issues with having two of them in the same place being ambiguous. I like cargo.toml for not being ambiguous.

#33

Iā€™m fine with Cargo.toml. The C being uppercase doesnā€™t really bother me. But as @ecl3ctic said, cargo.toml would (IMHO) work better because of naming conventions in Unix.

I donā€™t really like projectname.cargo because it wouldnā€™t be always the same for every project. Maybe something like package.cargo would be more appropriate.

#34

I would like to cast one vote for cargo.toml, regardless of capitalizaion.

Keeping the file name standard between projects, I think, is preferable.

#35

I would also like to vote for cargo.toml, lower cased, for unix conformity.

#36

I prefer cargo.toml, with a fallback to Cargo.toml. The *File convention is broken.

#37

What about just ā€˜cargoā€™ for the file name? Do we need to care about the extension?

#38

I feel its beneficial to have an extension for syntax highlighting purposes. Its easier to detect toml files when they have a toml extension.

#39

So in the absence of wycatsā€™ clarification, I have re-read his quote:

Capital letters group it together with other similar configuration files and avoids it from being interspersed with other files and directories.

I am guessing he means that:

  • Cargo* is good because if you are listing files in alphabetical order, it means that the file is at the top.
  • *.toml is good, because it means that the file is highlighted nicely.

For the reasons posted here I still prefer cargo.toml, but implying that wycats is being irrational here is a mistake.

#40

I support renaming Cargo.lock, because it screws up autocomplete when editing the Cargo.toml file :smile: