Fact: my post is very relevant to the OP and I'm offering to help them.
Fact: I've been a member of this site for over 12 years, and never comment on a post unless I think it adds value to the discussion or would be helper to the parent.
That's a good suggestion. I didn't think of that. But thinking about it, I guess I don't want to bother the OPs inbox. If they are interested, they can get in touch.
> added literally nothing to the discussion.
I disagree. When I post a new language, and someone shares a link to a related language, those are often the most valuable comments.
Validating, defining, using data: sound like things Tree Notation syntax is perfect for. Cue's semantics are great, and presentation and execution, I just think potentially a syntax switch is worth exploring. I understand the strategy to be able to parse JSON as cue, and that's probably the way to go for now, but in the future Tree Notation syntax might offer compelling advantages.
If the authors would like to discuss how Tree Notation may be a better syntax for this language, please feel free to get in touch: [email protected] or [email protected].
Here is a demonstration of what a Tree Language for config files could look like: https://treenotation.org/designer/#standard%20config