Spawn proposal strawman
brendan at mozilla.com
Tue May 12 00:31:37 PDT 2009
On May 12, 2009, at 12:24 AM, kevin curtis wrote:
> JsonML looks good for for an AST handling:
> ["Id", "X"],
> ["Id", "Y"]],
> ["Id", "Z"]]
> Maybe the 'canonical' AST serialized string format could actually be
> more scheme-y:
> (or (or X Y) Z)
> JsonML could be used for building pure js in-memory AST graphs which
> could then be easily stringified to the 'canonical' format.
JsonML wouldn't be used to build object graphs -- the JSON decoder
would do that given JsonML in a string, from the AST encoder. That's
the point I made in the words you bottom-cite about not mandating a
big fat object graph if the use-case doesn't need the graph, just the
string containing the AST serialization.
> The benefit is that a scheme-y format could help the thinking on the
> semantics for es6/harmony.
That seems like no benefit in memory use or cycles, only in thinking.
If you squint, don't the s turn into ()s? :-P
> (Downside compared to a JSON canonical format is that with JSON the
> parsing/stringifying is free via the JSON api in es5).
This is a big downside.
> For convenience JSON could remain JSON in this scheme-y format:
> var x = [1,4,5]
> (var x [1,4,5])
I don't see why we'd invent a third language.
More information about the es-discuss