used that is possibly easier to work with JSON values.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:18 PM, BlackEdder via Digitalmars-d-announce <
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 14:05:25 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> Yeah, I was wondering, if you have to import std.json and use it as a
>> basis for painlessjson, is it really so big an improvement? Especially
>> since std.json might be replaced (sooner or later). I'd prefer an "easy to
>> use" implementation that replaces std.json completely.
> Painlessjson in many ways abstracts away the std.json implementation, so
> using it you should rarely/never have to use std.json directly. It
> basically abstracts away most of the complexity and you should only ever
> have to use toJSON and fromJSON. This works with built-in types
> (double/int/string etc.) and also with ranges and associative arrays.
> On top of that Painlessjson also makes it easy to convert your own
> types/struct/classes to and from JSON by (de)serializing them automatically
> (as far as possible).
> If a better simpler std.json gets developed then we can rebase
> painlessjson on that and it might become a thinner wrapper, but I would
> expect the (de)serialization still to be useful in many cases.