Dale Henrichs wrote
If you guys are all fired up to write parsers:) writing a YAML parser for
Smalltalk would be very cool. There are yaml parsers for a bunch of
languages, but a Smalltalk parser is conspicuously absent ...
YAML is very readable (all the extraneous gibberish has been removed
On 20 October 2012 20:52, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2012 10:49, Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com wrote:
Ruby: {:foo = 1, :bar = 2}
Clojure: {:foo 1 :bar 2}
Python: {'foo': 1, 'bar': 2}
That's it? I can add some more :)
I'm sure. These are just the ones I
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 20 October 2012 00:54, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
| Igor,
|
| It's not clear that I need to be part of this discussion.
|
| If you want to invent a new serialization format, then go
+1
- Original Message -
| From: Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:49:10 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 20 October 2012 04:13, Igor Stasenko siguc
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:13:12 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 20 October 2012 03:48, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com
On 20 October 2012 10:49, Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com wrote:
Ruby: {:foo = 1, :bar = 2}
Clojure: {:foo 1 :bar 2}
Python: {'foo': 1, 'bar': 2}
That's it? I can add some more :)
This is interesting actually.. how hard you must try in attempt to
make it look sane and readable.
Dicts
On 20 October 2012 16:29, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:13:12 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object
Hi,
as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs to
have separate parser (a normal smalltalk parser used for that).
The idea is quite simple:
you can tell any object to represent itself as an 'object
On 19 October 2012 12:09, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs to
have separate parser (a normal smalltalk parser used for that).
The idea is quite
On 19 October 2012 13:40, Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2012 12:09, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs to
have
On 19 October 2012 13:56, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2012 13:40, Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2012 12:09, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
It based on
Hi Igor,
I like this very much.
When you say:
Object#asObjectLiteral to be a subclass responsibility.
I am not convinced this has to be the case. In my opinion, #asObjectLiteral
should be a replacement of #storeString. And #storeString is defined on Object
and it is not abstract.
Hi Igor,
This is a very nice and elegant expression (of a variation) of the Array
literal idea.
Thanks a lot for taking the effort to implement and share it.
I think that a formal specification and a standalone parser that does not
depend on the builtin compiler is also needed.
That would
- STON does this very nicely BTW...
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i
On 19 October 2012 14:11, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com wrote:
Hi Igor,
I like this very much.
When you say:
Object#asObjectLiteral to be a subclass responsibility.
I am not convinced this has to be the case. In my opinion, #asObjectLiteral
should be a replacement of
@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
| It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs
| to
| have separate
On 19 October 2012 16:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Hi Igor,
This is a very nice and elegant expression (of a variation) of the Array
literal idea.
Thanks a lot for taking the effort to implement and share it.
I think that a formal specification and a standalone parser that
On 19 October 2012 17:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Dale,
We have a web app where users sometimes have to enter some short pieces of
JSON - because we were lazy and did not provide a proper interface ;-) You
wouldn't believe in how many ways they make syntax errors and
this
very nicely BTW...
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i
Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format.
| It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON
: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format
readable alternatives
available.
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:29:07 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Dale,
|
| We have a web
like, by implementing the conversion methods
in a way you like :)
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation
, October 19, 2012 8:56:43 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Sven,
|
| Everybody needs a help from a parser to get formated input right ...
| I rely on sytax highlighting when I write Smalltalk code:), but I'd
| say the lack of key/value syntax
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi,
| as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 19 October 2012 16:55, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
| Igor,
|
| I'm afraid that your notation is not very friendly to humans ... a
| computer can keep track of the key value pairs in the literal
: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Sven,
|
| Everybody needs a help from a parser to get formated input right ...
| I rely on sytax highlighting when I write Smalltalk code:), but I'd
| say the lack of key/value syntax is more than a bit worse
but i agree , this is arguable. As long as you using objects which
provide own converters,
(so a generic one never takes place), you don't have to worry about it.
I think this would be interesting
According to the object you are converting into a string, #storeString may
produce code that
On 19 October 2012 18:33, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
Igor,
you can do anything you like ... you mean like choosing to use STON and not
invent my own notation format?
STON is a perfectly good notation format for Smalltalk...
Methinks that with your recent suggestions are no
On 19 October 2012 18:36, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com wrote:
but i agree , this is arguable. As long as you using objects which
provide own converters,
(so a generic one never takes place), you don't have to worry about it.
I think this would be interesting
According to the
: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 19 October 2012 18:33, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
| Igor,
|
| you can do anything you like ... you mean like choosing to use
| STON and not invent my own notation format?
|
| STON is a perfectly good notation
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:10:26 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 19 October 2012 16:55, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
| Igor,
|
| I'm afraid that your notation is not very friendly to humans ... a
| computer can keep
On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:20, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com wrote:
Could not it be
#( (category 'Topez-Client-Core') (classinstvars ) (classvars ) (commentStamp
'') (instvars 'project' 'package') (name 'TZTopezStatus') (pools ) (super
'Object') (type 'normal'))
Like this, no
Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Smalltalk
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:20:04 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| Hi Dale,
|
| I have followed this issue from very very far
On 19 October 2012 18:47, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
Igor,
But my aims is slightly different. and so are mine ...
I think that we can agree on this point and move on...
:)
i cannot agree on one point: JSON is harder to read to me, comparing
to smalltalk literal syntax.
This is
...the best we can hope for is to agree to
disagree.
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 12:43:33 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 19
Could not it be
#( (category 'Topez-Client-Core') (classinstvars ) (classvars )
(commentStamp '') (instvars 'project' 'package') (name 'TZTopezStatus')
(pools ) (super 'Object') (type 'normal'))
Like this, no parser at all is required.
By the way, why keep pools? should type be
: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| | To: Pharo Development Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| | Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:22 AM
| | Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object
| | literals
| |
| | Hi,
| | as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based
On 19 October 2012 22:15, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
Igor,
I think we can agree that readability is subjective, beyond that I'm afraid
that we aren't going to see eye to eye.
Put us in the same room with a whiteboard and we might be able to understand
each other's
Message -
| From: Eliot Miranda eliot.mira...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 2:07:28 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| HI Dale, Hi Igor,
|
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Dale Henrichs
, 2012 2:07:28 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| HI Dale, Hi Igor,
|
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com
| wrote:
|
|
| Igor,
|
| you can do anything you like ... you mean like choosing to use STON
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
|
|
|
| On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com
| wrote:
|
|
| Eliot,
|
| STON (and JSON IIRC) allows either $ or $' as string literal
| delimiters, so I am not holding onto the $ as a key
Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 2:11:37 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 19 October 2012 22:15, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
| Igor
On 20 October 2012 00:26, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
Ah,
So you are asking whether I think this:
{1:[1,2,3],'foo':'bar',3:{1:2,3:[1,2,3]}}
is more readable than this:
#(#Dictionary 1 #(#Array 1 2 3) 'foo' 'bar' 3 #(#Dictionary 1 2 3 #(#Array
1 2 3)))
My answer is
On 20 October 2012 00:54, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
Igor,
It's not clear that I need to be part of this discussion.
If you want to invent a new serialization format, then go for it.
I did chime in with my opinion that your suggested format was not very
readable. You happen
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:18 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 20 October 2012 00:26, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:46:47 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals
|
| On 20 October 2012 00:54, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com
On 20 October 2012 03:48, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:46:47 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object
On 20 October 2012 03:17, Dale Henrichs dhenr...@vmware.com wrote:
- Original Message -
| From: Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:09:18 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object
49 matches
Mail list logo
