On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think S-expressions are a better compromise between writability and ease of > parsing than XML. > > I'm a big fan of S-expressions, but please show me an S-expression parsing > library that has schemas, validation and so forth. The point is to get to a > readable surface syntax without giving those things up. > > But there is a more subtle issue here that I've been trying to figure out how > to express. > > The kind of stuff that I'm writing down isn't so much content as it is > declarations. Which is a subtly different problem. It's notable that all of > the various XML schema languages that are themselves written in XML are > incredibly cumbersome. Much more so than content written in XML. Though I'm > at a bit of a loss to explain why that should be. I've never been exposed to the wonders of XML schema, but probably the easiest way to get an S-expression parser with that kind of support is to use scheme with an 'e' instead of an 'a'. Then the declarations are just executing code and macros, and these can do whatever validation they want. However, I realize this may be extreme overkill, and therefore maybe not the direction you want to go. Geoffrey
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
