>
>> Finally and I still did not get a clear answer: why there is a need for
>> dictionary syntax to store method meta data.
>
> (I still think we are all discussing different things, and I do understand
> your point, and I myself don't want to force STON on anybody).
Yes this is not what I meant but I wanted to understand what people really want
because so far this is still unclear to me.
> But a quick question then, since I know you also know Lisp.
Yes I still like its sexpressions style :)
> Do you then see array literal syntax as s-expressions ?
I do not know what you mean by that.
The problem is that for objects it does not work (this is what we tried to do
with selfEvaluating objects - it was to get as close as possible as
true
=> true
# (1 2 3)
=> #(1 2 3)
{(10 @20) . (20@ 20)}
=> {(10 @20) . (20@ 20)}
but
{Person new}
=> anOrderedCollection (….)
> So that dictionaries/maps are like Lisp plists ?
Yes kind of
>
> Dictionary new
> at: #x put: 1;
> at: #y put; 2;
> yourself.
>
> would then be encoded like
>
> #( x 1 y 2 )
>
yes
or #((x 1) (y 2))
> ?
>
> Eventually doing a
>
> Dictionary newFromPairs:: #( x 1 y 2 )
>
> ?
> It would certainly work, with the know limitation that one has to know or
> understand the semantics upfront.
Yessssssss :) And the plus that we do not have to have a new parser.
the syntax for dictionary does just that. (ok it can be something big and
important) but my question is
what is the cost and the use case.
Stef
>
> Sven
