From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ztc2H-0001Wh-2L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:54:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ztc2G-0001lq-AC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:54:04 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51241) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ztc2G-0001lm-53 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:54:04 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB0F9C0D61A1 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC) References: <5633C8EC.8030309@redhat.com> <874mh44wvs.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56378572.5020203@redhat.com> <87egg8nro5.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5637C2B3.6090609@redhat.com> <87egg7lffd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20151103081917.1d348ad1@redhat.com> <5638B8DE.6020709@redhat.com> <20151103084643.26d71554@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5638BC77.5010102@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:53:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151103084643.26d71554@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: libyajl for JSON List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 03/11/2015 14:46, Luiz Capitulino wrote: >> > Can you explain why that would make sense? :) (Especially since the= re >> > is another extension---JSON5---that does exactly what we're doing, s= o it >> > probably wasn't that stupid an idea). > Let's be pragmatic. *If* this is the only issue stopping us from > dropping our own parser in favor of something more widely used and > *if* libvirt doesn't make use of the feature, it's something we > should strongly consider. I'm not sure what's so bad about our parser that makes it worthwhile to: 1) uglify all tests and make them inconsistent with the QAPI schemas, which also uses single-quoted strings 2) waste time finding a replacement for % interpolation (the best replacement here would be to rewrite the tests in Python IMHO, but that's not a small ask) Just let's remove the weird (to not say worse) usage of QDict/QList to store tokens... Paolo