Thoughts on renaming

[milesfrain]

This library is often confused with argonaut-codecs.

Could we make the names more distinct? For example, maybe rename this to purescript-argonaut-roundtrip?

[garyb]

I'm not against renaming it, but to me that name is worse from a meaning point of view :smile: - this library is the -argonaut addition to purescript-codec, so I'd want purescript-codec- to be the prefix for whatever else it ends up being.

I was intending on deprecating this for a purescript-codec-json if I ever finish up purescript-json, so maybe could just move to that name now, as one option.

[JordanMartinez]

if I ever finish up purescript-json...

What's left to do on that repo?

[garyb]

That's a good question. I think I felt there was still something missing regarding JSON objects in there. I just need to use it in anger and see what it's missing I think. It's extremely minimal, but that's the point. It's supposed to be the absolute minimum that is useful, keeping the FFI space nice and compact so that there's some possibility it can be implemented in other backends.

Ideally Argonaut would switch to using the new type while continuing to provide all the extra stuff it currently does. I'd also like simple-json to use it rather than Foreign. That way people can combine these libraries more sensibly than would be currently required.

[JordanMartinez]

I think I felt there was still something missing regarding JSON objects in there. I just need to use it in anger and see what it's missing I think.

I can't tell what is missing. Seems like most of what you would need is there already.

[JordanMartinez]

Why not make a v1.0.0 release and migrate code to use its types?

[garyb]

I'll do that.