Hi, Taiju HIGASHI skribis: > Andrew Tropin writes: [...] >>> Andrew Tropin skribis: >>> >>>> If serialization would support G-exps, we could write >>>> >>>> (list #~"RAW_XML_HERE") >>> >>> There’s a one-to-one lossless mapping between XML and SXML, so I don’t >>> think it makes sense to support XML-in-strings when we have SXML. >>> >>> The only thing it would give us, as I see it, is the ability to generate >>> syntactically-invalid XML. Maybe we can live without it? :-) >> >> Of course we can :), but we won't be able: >> >> 1. To take already existing xml config and use it without rewriting. > > I find it surprisingly important to be able to simply copy and paste > settings without having to rewrite existing settings or those listed on > a web page somewhere. I know we can easily convert from XML to SXML, > but those unfamiliar with SXML may find it a bothering task. OK, that makes sense. But then, let’s not allow users to intersperse XML-in-strings in the middle of XML. It should be either a user-provided file/string or the generated config, but not a mixture of both; that’d be a recipe for confusion. How about this: the service takes either a record or a file-like object? (We can even have a “gexp compiler” for to make that transparent.) Thanks, Ludo’.