got three days meeting this week so crawling to get my brain aligned with fun
again…
I will read your article. I will also look at STON because I like the object
literal syntax too :).
(note that I'm not changing my mind - I still do not get why I need dictionary
for method meta data -
but we are thinking (and the team should discuss for real and not just during
lunches) that having a literal object syntax would be cool).
Stef
>> I would like to share my quick two cents regarding this subject.
>>
>> 1st cent. I would stick with JSON. Even though I find STON slick, I would
>> not deviate from something that is mainstream and all Smalltalk dialects
>> already support.
>>
>> 2nd cent. A Dictionary literal syntax would be useful too. I would like to
>> have it.
>>
>> It could be something like #{'this' -> 1. 'that' -> 2 }, and keep {1. 2}
>> for
>> dynamic arrays.
>
> I don't want to sound like a broken record - but you do realize that I wrote
> about this in the article and mentioned this exact syntax?
>
> I know, the article was a tad long - but just go to planet.smalltalk.org and
> search down to "Sidestory: Adding literal Dictionaries to Smalltalk?".
>
> regards, Göran
>
