I agree that we should add a mention. Other opinions?
Andrei On 10/28/10 2:14 CDT, Brian Schott wrote:
The DMD 2.050 beta zip contains no mention of std.json being scheduled for eventual replacement. Is it really a good idea to have another release with this code included and no warning that it will eventually go away? On 10/23/2010 09:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:I strongly believe std.json must be replaced. Here is my list of grievances and requirements: * JSONValue is utterly unsafe because it relies on an open tagged union. Essentially memory safety is entirely dependent on the user. * Even if the union were made safe, handling things with an enum is antiquated. The code should use types throughout, a la Algebraic, or - better yet - use Algebraic itself: struct JSONFalse {}; struct JSONTrue {}; struct JSONNull {}; alias Algebraic!( string, long, This[string], This[], JSONTrue, JSONFalse, JSONNull ) JSONValue; * The function parseJSON takes a range but not by reference, which means there is no way for the caller to know the new range position after having parsed one json object. * toJSON returns a string, which is inefficient for large objects. It should take an output range. Even if we later add serialization based on json transport, a simple, independent API would be beneficial for many. I'm thinking in fact of adding support for Json in std.format by means of %j. So then you can read and write Json stuff with writef and readf. Andrei_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
