[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:53:09 +0200 |
> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:24:35 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> > address@hidden json-parse-string string
> > address@hidden json-parse-string string &key (object-type 'hash-table)
>
> Hmm.. why is there an apostrophe before "hash-table"? What do you
> want to get in the output there?
>
> An apostrophe? It seems to work as expected.
That's not what I meant. I meant we never use a bare apostrophe in
Texinfo, we use markup instead. So I asked what you want to get there
in the Info and printed output, so I could suggest a proper markup.
> And btw, I don't see "&key" mentioned anywhere in the ELisp manual, so
> I wonder whether the reader will understand what it means.
>
> This is the Common Lisp syntax, from cl-defun etc. It's a bit unfortunate
> that it's not used in Emacs core, even
> for functions that take keyword arguments such as `make-process'. I can
> switch to '&rest args' if you prefer
> that.
Let's wait until the discussion of using &key in the code reaches its
conclusion. If &key will stay in the source, I do prefer &rest in the
manual.
> > + result = Fnreverse (result);
>
> Is there a reason for calling nreverse here?
>
> It puts the elements in the same order as the original JSON. (The Jansson
> parser also retains the original
> order.)
> This isn't very important, just a bit nicer and less surprising.
It's a potential performance hit, but if you think it's worthwhile,
it's fine with me.
> > +The keyword argument OBJECT-TYPE specifies which Lisp type is used to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Shouldn't that be `:object-type' (including quotes)?
>
> Depending on whether we can use &key in a docstring in core. If so, then this
> one is correct, see e.g. the
> docstring of should-error.
IMO, the doc string of should-error is no less confusing than this
one, because it expects something like ":type 'foo".
- JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, raman, 2017/12/11
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Nicolas Petton, 2017/12/12
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/13
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, T.V Raman, 2017/12/13
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/12/14
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/16
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/17
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/12/17
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/18
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/12/18
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/18
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Vibhav Pant, 2017/12/18
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/19
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/12/19
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Philipp Stephani, 2017/12/19
- Re: JSON->lisp Mapping: Hash vs AList, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2017/12/18