Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes: > Patrick Maupin wrote: >> On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too >> hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of >>> JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file. >>> Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON. >> >> Well, Python is essentially a superset of JSON, with string escape >> handling being ever so slightly different, and using True instead of >> true, False instead of false, and None instead of null. YMMV, but I >> find it possible, even probable, to write Python that is far easier to >> edit than JSON, and in fact, I have used Python for configuration >> files that are only to be edited by programmers or other technical >> types. > > This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset" > (as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON), > but still doesn't address the question. Is RSON and _actual_ superset > of JSON, or are you just misusing the term there, as well? If it is, > then your rationale for not using JSON makes no sense if you're making > a new format that's merely a superset of it. Obviously JSON can't be > that unreadable if you're _extending_ it to make your own "more > readable" format. If JSON is unreadable, so must be RSON. Your argument is utterly speculative as you are making clear you haven't read the OP's proposal. -- Arnaud
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4