On 8/25/2014 12:25 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I am currently working on DUB to support the new SDL package format. Initially I was very happy to see a new format, especially one that seemed very simple and intuitive. However, after getting intimate with SDL I found that even though it seemed simple and stripped down, it actually has some odd "eccentricities". I wanted to see if there was a language that was as easy to read/write as SDL but didn't have so many odd rules. I spent some time looking at other formats but ended up attempting to write my own. I started with a clean slate and when I was finished I realized that I just made another variation of JSON...so I called it ASON( Application Specific Object Notation). I know that this discussion has already been had here, but I thought this language had enough advantages over SDL that it was worth it to see wh
at people think before we take the final plunge and implement the SDL package format.
I'm finding that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the
rules of ASON. For example, one of your examples has this:
// The following are all the same
"Jim" 42 "Banker";
"Jim" {age 42 occupation "Banker"}
{name "Jim" age 42 occupation "Banker"}
I find the fact that the second and third are equivalent to be very
confusing.
Also, at times, it seems like ASON's semantics are dependent on the D
struct being filled. Or am I mistaken about that?
How are these two lines interpreted by ASON?:
a b c
a b c d
What is the equivalent JSON for those? Is it:
"a": {"b": "c"}
"a": {"b": ["c", "d"]}
or:
"a": "b", "c": null
"a": "b", "c": "d"
or:
"a": "b", "c": {
"a": "b", "c": "d"
}
or:
"a": "b", "c": "a", "b": "c", "d": null
Or something else?