Before we implement SDL package format for DUB

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/2/2014 5:33 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 19:53:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> True for XML too:
>>> 1. many editors already autocomplete it, no need to wonder, why nobody
>>> implemented it;
>>
>> Personally, I don't like that auto-insert stuff, it just trips me up.
>
> Didn't you argue for autoinserting? If you don't want it, you can turn
> it off (it's implemented).
>

I think it's great that it exists *for the people who DO like it*. I'm 
just not one of them. It conflicts with my automatic muscle memory and 
my deep-ingrained mental model of keyboard-based computer interaction. :/

>
> Your suggestion is a hack

It's no more of a hack than ANY modern editor feature.

Besides, that's not even an argument anyway, it's subjective bullshit.

I've pointed out over and over how this and other editor features 
effectively bring the two styles of closing tokens into parity (again, 
assuming one is ok with auto-insert, which many people are). Why are you 
so determined to completely ignore that argument?


> and less popular than XML.

That's even more nonsensical: You're not actually going to use popularly 
as an argument in a merit-oriented debate, are you?

"That's a flawed idea *because* it's not popular." See? Obviously 
doesn't work.


> Though, I don't see
> why create the problem with succinct language and then heroically solve
> it? (oh, wait, not yet)

Are you deliberately ignoring the part (which I've already pointed out) 
where this is obviously not limited to merely JSON alone, or even just 
data-formats, at all, but generally applicable to any language which 
uses a single same token to terminate all types of nested blocks?

If you're going to argue something, at least *attempt* to address the 
actual points that have been raised. Otherwise there's no point in 
discussing anything.