Re: User-defined record types

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>>> Something that represents JSON and YAML well would be nice.  Currently
>>> we don't have an ELisp data structure that can preserve all JSON nuances
>>> without acrobatics (e.g. preserving the difference between "null" and
>>> "empty list" or the native JSON data types).
SM> I don't understand what you mean here.  It's very easy to have special
SM> values, e.g. (defconst json-null (make-symbol "json-null")).
> Yes, but it's not something you can communicate externally.  Compare
> with pure JSON or BSON, which are intended for communication across
> programs.

You lost me: I though "null" and "empty list" were JSON thingies, so
I just offered you ways to represent them on the Elisp side.  Of course,
when turning those elements into JSON, you'd be careful to map them to
the appropriate JSON elements.

> Sure.  I'm saying a custom data structure would help here, not that it's
> the only way to accomplish it, and trying to answer your earlier
> question about custom record types.

I still don't understand in what way a custom data structure would help.

>>> a native XML data structure would also be nice.  We have what libxml
>>> produces, dumped in an awkward tree, but nothing native.
SM> Not sure what "native" can mean in this context: we were talking about
SM> new Lisp-defined types.
> Native to ELisp, but in a way that represents the original data
> structure cleanly and transparently.

I still don't see what that means.  In which way would it be cleaner or
more transparent?

> I'm talking about custom data types that can be efficiently and
> transparently converted to what the external libraries and protocols
> expect, and provide a good ELisp interface to their contents.  I think
> the currently available XML and JSON representation in ELisp don't do
> both.  Am I misunderstanding the question?

What alternative do you have in mind that would be more efficient and/or
more transparent?


        Stefan