Reminder about draft specs

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at
Tue Nov 12 17:05:30 UTC 2019

> On 9 Nov 2019, at 04:57, John Rose <john.r.rose at> wrote:
> I like the (de-)serialization specification for records, because it is a minimum cut on the existing
> specification.  A day may come when a new serialization is based on something like expression
> trees which are executed to produce the deserialized values… but it is not THIS day, as Aragorn
> might say.
> In order to emphasize the incremental relation of record serialization to what has gone before,
> it would be helpful (even if only as a blog post) to show how the effect of record serialization,
> as documented in the proposed spec., would look if it were hand-coded using today’s
> serialization.
> I guess what I’m saying is that records can be demystified if they can be (as much as possible)
> described in terms of the boilerplate you would be forced to write, if you wanted the proposed
> behavior, but didn’t have the proposed feature.  Make sense?

Yes, good idea. I’ll write something up.


More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list