Finally and I still did not get a clear answer: why there is a need for dictionary syntax to store method meta data.
(I still think we are all discussing different things, and I do understand your point, and I myself don't want to force STON on anybody).
Yes this is not what I meant but I wanted to understand what people really want because so far this is still unclear to me.
But a quick question then, since I know you also know Lisp. Yes I still like its sexpressions style :)
Do you then see array literal syntax as s-expressions ?
I do not know what you mean by that. The problem is that for objects it does not work (this is what we tried to do with selfEvaluating objects - it was to get as close as possible as true => true # (1 2 3) => #(1 2 3) {(10 @20) . (20@ 20)} => {(10 @20) . (20@ 20)} but {Person new} => anOrderedCollection (â¦.)
So that dictionaries/maps are like Lisp plists ?
Yes kind of
Dictionary new at: #x put: 1; at: #y put; 2; yourself.
would then be encoded like
#( x 1 y 2 )
yes or #((x 1) (y 2))
?
Eventually doing a
Dictionary newFromPairs:: #( x 1 y 2 )
? It would certainly work, with the know limitation that one has to know or understand the semantics upfront.
Yessssssss :) And the plus that we do not have to have a new parser. the syntax for dictionary does just that. (ok it can be something big and important) but my question is what is the cost and the use case. Stef
Sven