RFC: std.json sucessor

[Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/23/2014 3:20 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8/23/2014 12:00 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 8/23/2014 10:46 AM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> I feel that non-UTF encodings should be handled by adapter algorithms,
>>> not embedded into the JSON lexer, so yes, I'd drop that.
>>
>> For performance purposes, determining encoding during lexing is useful.
>
> I'm not convinced that using an adapter algorithm won't be just as fast.

Consider your own talks on optimizing the existing dmd lexer.  In those 
talks you've talked about the evils of additional processing on every 
byte.  That's what you're talking about here.  While it's possible that 
the inliner and other optimizer steps might be able to integrate the two 
phases and remove some overhead, I'll believe it when I see the 
resulting assembly code.