[erlang-questions] json_to_term EEP

Jim Larson jim@REDACTED
Wed Jul 30 09:04:25 CEST 2008

In message <38C632F4-991C-4F8D-8694-8DE1066385FC@REDACTED>
Richard A. O'Keefe writes:
>On 30 Jul 2008, at 2:55 am, Hynek Vychodil wrote:
>> Aside non-uniformity of  list_to_existing_atom way, there is  
>> performance drawback too. For each key you must call  
>> list_to_existing_atom(binary_to_list(X)) and binary_to_list causes  
>> GC pressure in this usage. I would not have use this variant, too.
>What performance drawback?  What call to binary_to_list()?  Whoever said
>the binary EXISTED in the first place?  The EEP is a proposal for  
>these conversion functions in the Erlang core, eventually to be
>implemented in C.  So implemented, the alleged performance drawback  
>does not exist.

I may have been the source of the confusion here.  I mentioned
list_to_existing_atom/1 in my feedback to Richard's original draft.
I mentioned it only to a) point to existing semantics, and b) suggest
that the proposed parser interface would allows a pure erlang
implementation in addition to being built in to the runtime, though
I was not explicit about either reason.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list