And what about borrowing the syntax that Anton Lavrik used for erlson [1]? That syntax looks similar to the one used for records and is much easier to read/write.<div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://github.com/alavrik/erlson">https://github.com/alavrik/erlson</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Richard O'Keefe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ok@cs.otago.ac.nz" target="_blank">ok@cs.otago.ac.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On 1/05/2012, at 3:38 PM, Max Lapshin wrote:<br>
<br>
> I mean using JSON directly inside Erlang:<br>
><br>
><br>
> function({type : <<"article">>, title : Title, id : Id} = Object) -><br>
> Object{id : make_permalink(Id, Title)}.<br>
><br>
> or<br>
><br>
> Article = {id : 523, title : proplists:get_value(<<"title">>, Params)}<br>
><br>
> I mean this. Your syntax may have some historical roots, but they are<br>
> too ancient. Nowadays such syntax <{key ~ value>} look like inventing<br>
> bicycle with square wheels.<br>
<br>
</div>JSON syntax is ***Javascript*** syntax.<br>
<br>
The frames proposal has always made it very clear why we cannot<br>
copy JSON syntax.<br>
<br>
{} is already an empty TUPLE,<br>
it cannot also be an empty 'dictionary'.<br>
We cannot reasonably use unadorned curly<br>
braces for frames.<br>
<br>
{a:f()} already means a tuple whose one element<br>
is the value of a call to the f() function<br>
in module a. We *CANNOT* even unreasonably<br>
use a colon in maplets; it is just not going<br>
to work.<br>
<br>
Have a lollipop.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>