On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 4:50 PM Anders Rundgren <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2018-03-18 20:15, Mike Samuel wrote:
> > I and others have been trying to move towards consensus on what a
> hashable form of
> > JSON should look like.
> >
> > We've identified key areas including
> > * property ordering,
> > * number canonicalization,
> > * string normalization,
> > * whether the input should be a JS value or a string of JSON,
> > * and others
> >
> > but, as in this case, you seem to be arguing both sides of a position to
> support your
> > proposal when you could just say "yes, the proposal could be adjusted
> along this
> > dimension and still provide what's required."
>
> For good or for worse, my proposal is indeed about leveraging ES6's take
> on JSON including limitations, {bugs}, and all.
> I'm not backing from that position because then things get way more
> complex and probably never even happen.
>
> Extending [*] the range of "Number" is pretty much (in practical terms)
> the same thing as changing JSON itself.
>
Your proposal is limiting Number; my alternative is not extending Number.
"Number" is indeed mindless crap but it is what is.
>
> OTOH, the "Number" problem was effectively solved some 10 years ago
> through putting stuff in "strings".
> Using JSON Schema or "Old School" strongly typed programmatic solutions of
> the kind I use, this actually works great.
>
> Anders
>
> *] The RFC gives you the right to do that but existing implementations do
> not.
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
