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.