On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 4:00 PM Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2018-03-18 20:23, Mike Samuel wrote: > > It is possible that I don't understand what you are asking for here > since I have no experience with toJSON. > > > > Based on this documentation > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify > < > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify > > > > JSON.canonicalize() would though work out of the box (when > integrated in the JSON object NB...) since it would inherit all the > functionality (and 99% of the code) of JSON.stringify() > > > > > > JSON.stringify(new Date()) has specific semantics because > Date.prototype.toJSON has specific semantics. > > As currently written, JSON.canonicalize(new Date()) === > JSON.canonicalize({}) > > It seems that you (deliberately?) misunderstand what I'm writing above. > > JSON.canonicalize(new Date()) would do exactly the same thing as > JSON.stringify(new Date()) since it apparently only returns a string. > Where in the spec do you handle this case? Again, the sample code I provided is a bare bones solution with the only > purpose showing the proposed canonicalization algorithm in code as a > complement to the written specification. > Understood. AFAICT neither the text nor the instructional code treat Dates differently from an empty object. > Anders >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
