News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Native/OCaml. Parent comment

Re:Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Nat... by jeffbee on Monday September 14, 2020 @10:44AM (#24470730)
Probably. You tell us :=)

The incompatibility is apparently due to the fact that jq is happy with a concatenation of JSON objects and q is not. For example {'foo':1}{'foo':2} as opposed to [{'foo':1},{'foo':2}]

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Nat... by davesnx on Monday September 14, 2020 @10:53AM (#24470847)
Sure, it's a missing feature "," creates 2 spins of the filter.

I certantly didn't use it, but I see where it's useful, will implement it soon.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Nat... by pwm on Monday September 14, 2020 @11:37AM (#24471415)
To be fair that is a JSON parse error.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Nat... by jeffbee on Monday September 14, 2020 @11:40AM (#24471438)
Yes, but the inputs to jq are not JSON, they are "a sequence of whitespace-separated JSON values which are passed through the provided filter one at a time" which is the relevant thing if you are going to try to replace jq.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Q: A faster re-implementaiton of jq written in Reason Nat... by davesnx on Saturday September 19, 2020 @07:43AM (#24526761)
Yep, kind of.

The comma operations means that the "filters" are duplicated, so instead of one json state you would pass two if there's one coma; and ofcourse any number of commas are allowed.

[ Parent | on HN ]