> Not serializing BigInt is questionable to me but even that can be solved in > userland.
This is pretty easy for `JSON.stringify`, at least: you specify a reviver that coerces them to numbers: ```js JSON.stringify(object, null, (k, v) => typeof v === "bigint" ? Number(v) : v) ``` The deserialization of that is trickier, but it's easy worked around. ----- Isiah Meadows [email protected] www.isiahmeadows.com On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Michael Theriot <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a language with arbitrary integer precision, Python 3 for example, the way > to parse a "BigInt" would just be a plain, human readable number without > quotes. The way to serialize it is the same. Any other kind of representation > is out of spec, a workaround, and belongs in userland. > > I think BigInt should serialize the same, not as strings or anything that is > not a number. JSON.parse being unable to parse back into BigInt is a separate > issue. It is solvable by using better parsing methods, not the convenient > built-in one which has other issues. E.g. a streaming JSON parser that lets > you inspect the key name and string being parsed can handle this. Case solved > and you can also redesign your code so you are not creating a temporary > object every single parse that you most likely copy into actual objects later. > > Not serializing BigInt is questionable to me but even that can be solved in > userland. > > On Saturday, July 14, 2018, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> var small = BigInt("5"); >> var big = BigInt("5555555555555555555555555500003"); >> JSON.stringify([big,small]); >> VM330:1 Uncaught TypeError: Do not know how to serialize a BigInt >> at JSON.stringify (<anonymous>) >> at <anonymous>:1:6 >> >> JSON Number serialization has apparently reached a new level (of confusion). >> >> Personally I don't see the problem. XML did just fine without hard-coded >> data types. >> >> The JSON type system is basically a relic from JavaScript. As such it has >> proved to be quite useful. >> However, when you are outside of that scope, the point with the JSON type >> system gets pretty much zero since you anyway need to map extended types. >> >> Oracle's JSON-B solution which serializes small values as Number and large >> values as String rather than having a unified serialization based on the >> underlying data type seems like a pretty broken concept although indeed >> fully conforming to the JSON specification. "Like the Devil reads the Bible" >> as we say in Scandinavia :-) >> >> Adding a couple of double quotes is a major problem? If so, it seems like a >> way more useful project making quotes optional for keys (named in a specific >> way), like they already are in JavaScript. >> >> Yeah, and of course adding support for comments. >> >> Anders >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
