|
Unpaired surrogate handling
Shiro Kawai
(26 Jan 2020 00:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
John Cowan
(26 Jan 2020 02:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
Shiro Kawai
(26 Jan 2020 03:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
Amirouche Boubekki
(03 Feb 2020 11:13 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
John Cowan
(05 Feb 2020 23:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
Lassi Kortela
(07 Feb 2020 15:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: Unpaired surrogate handling
John Cowan
(07 Feb 2020 15:46 UTC)
|
|
json-read vs json-fold Lassi Kortela (07 Feb 2020 15:52 UTC)
|
|
Re: json-read vs json-fold
Amirouche Boubekki
(07 Feb 2020 17:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: json-read vs json-fold
John Cowan
(11 Feb 2020 21:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: json-read vs json-fold
Amirouche Boubekki
(11 Feb 2020 21:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: json-read vs json-fold
John Cowan
(11 Feb 2020 22:26 UTC)
|
json-read vs json-fold Lassi Kortela 07 Feb 2020 15:52 UTC
> What do you think about making the tokenizer, that is now called > json-tokens, an optional argument of json-fold? Since it is easy to > implement json-read with json-fold, I would not propagate the optional > argument to json-read to keep the signature simpler. Eventually, it > would be easier to somehow handle unpaired surrogates. A JSON fold makes sense. But if `json-tokens` is a generator, the generic `generator-fold` from SRFI 158 should be usable on it; do we need a custom fold just for JSON?