From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Aleix_Conchillo_Flaqu=C3=A9?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile-json 0.2.0 released Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:59:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <871uaqha98.fsf@taylan.dyndns.org> <8738v63pj4.fsf@taylan.dyndns.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1365117073 25437 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2013 23:11:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user To: "Taylan Ulrich B." Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 05 01:11:41 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UNtJj-0006U5-VW for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:11:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35680 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNtJK-0001Zi-4w for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:11:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48191) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNt8R-0002B8-0s for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNt8M-00027i-9F for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:59:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com ([209.85.128.176]:43962) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNt8M-00027O-67 for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:59:54 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ox1so3074008veb.7 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RjWLWMsQP/zq3GfX3VkwV+kt1A5jUCbNVgrVPHMUaao=; b=IRBQ25ijnn1TXVOwIh2rNU8jQHTUuHPxQnIQN6QcmKrDdRhPP7Ye2u7wJ1IlPiABQz EzKJV4DiEXf+wH+MPOm1xkGdSWLYt9NUZ3gEy0P2YLfbzPYwhixyEOZsNSWObryVQIJG vkgwzZjmXBQjBSKPvTqAU2Exk5cyGM6TGD8wHOB2g9xAMv5fqwfZMnreO7ETyASgj4HB 4kks7FbSLMb7Ks6NWhlrscImwrxC5v0mStc3hdyAG2AuGRTWMEH+XDU0jmWYupdXXeEJ J7xMvbzTNQ55gRq3mD/uPnN5BTBF7DYv3ZkMbRoKyyp8/GCScPTN6RnJAP4tk2TSg4ZF wSMg== X-Received: by 10.58.15.193 with SMTP id z1mr6411529vec.40.1365116393044; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.58.213.129 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8738v63pj4.fsf@taylan.dyndns.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.128.176 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:10235 Archived-At: Thank you both for the comments. I must admit that I got kind of lost and I ended up not knowing if you had any specific suggestions for guile-json. It is my very first guile (scheme) package and I am pretty new to scheme. >From what I understood, the main concerns were: 1. Hash tables might not be a proper way to represent JSON objects. 2. Syntax for accessing JSON objects. For 1, as Taylan mentioned, json.org clearly says that JSON objects are unordered. So I thought a hash table was the right data structure to use. I initially thought about using association lists, but that's ordered and performance might be worst for large objects. May be it would be better to have a json-object type and procedures to access it (json-object-ref ...) and internally it could be a hash table, or an alist. Then, maybe, the user could specify if he wants to get ordered json-objects or not, and internally use hash tables or alists. For 2, yes, a better syntax would be ideal. I don't know about SRFI-105, but I'll take a look into it. Best, Aleix