On 5/8/12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > Stéphane, > > On 08 May 2012, at 22:59, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> 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). > > But a quick question then, since I know you also know Lisp. > > Do you then see array literal syntax as s-expressions ?
Yes, I see them as such and for that I agree with Stephane D. that they may serve to store the meta data. But they are not all that readable and the semantics is not so easy to deduct. However that's a matter of taste. > So that dictionaries/maps are like Lisp plists ? Yes. And BTW, thank you all for this interesting discussion. We'll see where it leads to. It will help us all to get more insight into the matter of data exchange in a human readable and sustainable way. (i.e. parsers are available in various dialects and languages) --Hannes > Dictionary new > at: #x put: 1; > at: #y put; 2; > yourself. > > would then be encoded like > > #( 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. > > Sven >
