[erlang-questions] Frames proposal
Richard O'Keefe
ok@REDACTED
Tue May 1 07:27:20 CEST 2012
On 1/05/2012, at 3:38 PM, Max Lapshin wrote:
> I mean using JSON directly inside Erlang:
>
>
> function({type : <<"article">>, title : Title, id : Id} = Object) ->
> Object{id : make_permalink(Id, Title)}.
>
> or
>
> Article = {id : 523, title : proplists:get_value(<<"title">>, Params)}
>
> I mean this. Your syntax may have some historical roots, but they are
> too ancient. Nowadays such syntax <{key ~ value>} look like inventing
> bicycle with square wheels.
JSON syntax is ***Javascript*** syntax.
The frames proposal has always made it very clear why we cannot
copy JSON syntax.
{} is already an empty TUPLE,
it cannot also be an empty 'dictionary'.
We cannot reasonably use unadorned curly
braces for frames.
{a:f()} already means a tuple whose one element
is the value of a call to the f() function
in module a. We *CANNOT* even unreasonably
use a colon in maplets; it is just not going
to work.
Have a lollipop.
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list