You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just curious: why don't we use the xml collection to convert Racket value to XML string? It's easier to manipulate xexpr, less error-prone, and probably more efficient than using string-append (which could theoretically take quadratic time in the size of the datum).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes - this is good to put on our todo list for when we go through and do a clean-up/refactoring. It was like this originally but got lost in the switch to/from json.
I agree, I used it for the other direction (parsing xml models to partial instances) and it was way less painful. The bug patched today was caused by string difficulties.
Just curious: why don't we use the
xml
collection to convert Racket value to XML string? It's easier to manipulatexexpr
, less error-prone, and probably more efficient than usingstring-append
(which could theoretically take quadratic time in the size of the datum).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: