Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu> schrieb am Mo., 18. Sep. 2017 um 16:28 Uhr:

> On 18/09/17 at 02:14pm, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> > Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu> schrieb am Mo., 18. Sep. 2017 um 15:58
> Uhr:
> >
> > > Was there a particular reason (aside from access time) you chose
> > > hash tables instead of a sexp form?
> >
> > - Hashtables have similar constraints as the underlying JSON objects (no
> > duplicate keys, no ordering), so they are a better match.
> > - Hashtables have non-nil empty values. If I had uses alists, I would
> have
> > had to introduce a separate keyword :json-null for null.
> > - Hashtables always represent maps, but alists are also normal sequences,
> > so users could expect that they get translated into arrays instead of
> > objects.
> > - Using only one data structure per JSON object type makes the interface
> > and implementation simpler.
>
> Makes sense and I agree, thank you.  Thanks for the patch.
>

Thanks for the review; pushed to master as cb99cf5a99.