> On 9 Nov 2019, at 04:57, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> I like the (de-)serialization specification for records, because it is a
> minimum cut on the existing
> specification. A day may come when a new serialization is based on something
> like expression
> trees which are executed to produce the deserialized values… but it is not
> THIS day, as Aragorn
> might say.
>
> In order to emphasize the incremental relation of record serialization to
> what has gone before,
> it would be helpful (even if only as a blog post) to show how the effect of
> record serialization,
> as documented in the proposed spec., would look if it were hand-coded using
> today’s
> serialization.
>
> I guess what I’m saying is that records can be demystified if they can be (as
> much as possible)
> described in terms of the boilerplate you would be forced to write, if you
> wanted the proposed
> behavior, but didn’t have the proposed feature. Make sense?
Yes, good idea. I’ll write something up.
-Chris.
