Timeline for One data structure to both parse and stringify
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2018 at 17:44 | vote | accept | Lance Pollard | ||
| May 24, 2018 at 6:30 | answer | added | Doc Brown | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:44 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Javascript supports this natively with JSON using Stringify and parse, no further effort required. If you want to handle custom representations, you have to write your own stringify and parse functions. I've never heard of this being done with a grammar, though I suppose you could. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:32 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | @RobertHarvey I am using JavaScript. Just thinking of the URL example, parsing/serializing that since it's a standard object with named properties (protocol, domain, pathname, query, etc.). | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:32 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | @unifiedmodelingsandwich I am considering just a general parsing/serializing of my own arbitrary/custom representation (which can def be part of the answer, how the representation should be, but doesn't need to go into that as that's more impl specific). | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:11 | comment | added | unified modeling sandwich | Lance, please provide more info. Are you looking for a way to export and import a representation of internal objects, where the representation is chosen by the system? Or are you asking a general question about parsing and serialising an external representation of your choice? | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:06 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | What programming language are you using? | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:05 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | Please explain more that sounds like what I'm looking for :) | |
| May 24, 2018 at 4:00 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Generalized serialization/deserialization of objects (without having to know the type being serialized/deserialized ahead of time) is already a thing in several programming languages. It is accomplished using a variety of techniques, including Reflection. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 3:12 | comment | added | unified modeling sandwich | If the mapping from strings to tokens, as well as the rules for creating an abstract syntax representation from the sequence of tokens, are both bijective, then an algorithm can revert the lexical and grammatical analysis based on data structures representing the mapping and rules. All other cases require analysis and then usually serialisation code is the best option, because you have to know whether your alternatives can all be represented by a normal form (which no algorithm can guess from your injective rules, although in theory the data can be extended to include such information). | |
| May 24, 2018 at 3:04 | history | edited | Lance Pollard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 167 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 2:55 | comment | added | Telastyn | What? This doesn’t make any sense. Types by definition define the legal values a variable can have. Product types allow you to combine multiple variables. Generating the possible strings is simply iterating the possible values (in string form; all possible combinations for product types). That doesn’t require any fancy data structure, and is near useless in any case. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 2:47 | history | edited | Lance Pollard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 113 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 2:39 | history | asked | Lance Pollard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |