On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Marko Topolnik <marko.topol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Java has arrays, lists, maps and sets, so does Ruby and Erlang. >> >> If they were redundancies in these structures, can't see why these three >> still >> maintain this distinction. It's probably a safe bet to say that we need to >> convey these >> nuances in edn somehow. > > > Let's keep this in perspective: this is not about conveying and not > conveying. If edn had only vectors, the nuance could still be conveyed > through a tag. This is ONLY about what gets baked in and what is left over > to extensions. > > Take a similar example from Java: there are no list/set/map literals in it. > Sure, you can write an API call that mimics it, but it's nowhere near as > convenient as a native construct. So, do we want edn to support the > list/vector distinction only through extensions? Have our data files riddled > with #list annotations? This is a strong argument in favor of the feature > from the Clojure folks' perspective, while on the opposite side we have a > quite weak motivation to make the format a tiny bit simpler to parse.
Having written (most of) a recursive decent parser for edn over the weekend, I submit that the difference in complexity introduced by supporting both [ ] and ( ) as opposed to supporting only one of them is not worth worrying about. // Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
