<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.12-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A SRFI-10-style extension to JSON</title>
	<link>http://www.lshift.net/blog/2005/10/11/a-srfi-10-style-extension-to-json</link>
	<description>What happens at LShift</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: tonyg</title>
		<link>http://www.lshift.net/blog/2005/10/11/a-srfi-10-style-extension-to-json#comment-16</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lshift.net/blog/2005/10/11/a-srfi-10-style-extension-to-json#comment-16</guid>
					<description>&lt;p&gt;Actually, I &lt;i&gt;don't&lt;/i&gt; think JSON should be executable javascript. I think it serves my purpose better if it's just a data language, with only very limited code-execution ability.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Function call syntax is another option for this read-time-evaluation extension, though - it may not even be harder to parse. (The immediate attraction of the @ prefix is firstly that it's very easy to parse, and secondly that it doesn't look like function application, since it isn't really function application.)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I <i>don&#8217;t</i> think JSON should be executable javascript. I think it serves my purpose better if it&#8217;s just a data language, with only very limited code-execution ability.</p>
<p>Function call syntax is another option for this read-time-evaluation extension, though - it may not even be harder to parse. (The immediate attraction of the @ prefix is firstly that it&#8217;s very easy to parse, and secondly that it doesn&#8217;t look like function application, since it isn&#8217;t really function application.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Paul Crowley</title>
		<link>http://www.lshift.net/blog/2005/10/11/a-srfi-10-style-extension-to-json#comment-15</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:31:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lshift.net/blog/2005/10/11/a-srfi-10-style-extension-to-json#comment-15</guid>
					<description>&lt;p&gt;Useful, and a need I've felt myself in AJAX-like applications.  But shouldn't the syntax look more like a programming language?  JSON should be executable JavaScript; it shouldn't be hard to use syntax that looks like a function call, and then the function could look up and return the so-named object.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Useful, and a need I&#8217;ve felt myself in AJAX-like applications.  But shouldn&#8217;t the syntax look more like a programming language?  JSON should be executable JavaScript; it shouldn&#8217;t be hard to use syntax that looks like a function call, and then the function could look up and return the so-named object.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
