@isiah, actionable items before stage-4 are currently being debated @ https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint/issues/162
On Aug 1, 2018 14:00, "Isiah Meadows" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is 1 a byte, int, double, BigInt or BigNumber? You tell me! This > obviously > > has major consequences for parsers. However, as long as you stay with > the > > original JS Number scope everything works just fine. > > BTW, most strongly typed languages parse numbers one of two ways: > > - If it's just digits, it's parsed as an integer (typically an `int` or > `long`) > - If it has floating point stuff, it's parsed as a float (typically a > `double`) > > > Other people (including myself) are more pragmatic and pretty much > dismiss > > JSON Number as a suitable notation for numbers outside of the original JS > > scope. This view is also aligned with most IETF and W3C standards to > date > > defining JSON structures. > > In general, JSON is great for prototyping protocols and easy > serialization when performance *isn't* a major concern, but that's > about it. (It's better than XML and more performant than it, but it's > still needlessly complex to parse/serialize.) > > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > [email protected] > www.isiahmeadows.com > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Anders Rundgren > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard et al, > > > > If we call the situation "limbo" or not isn't that important, I just > happen > > to have a preference for strong or funny expressions. > > > > The root of the problem (not only for JavaScript) is that JSON is *the > only > > general purpose data interchange format in existence* that uses a single > > notion to signal "here comes a number". > > > > Is 1 a byte, int, double, BigInt or BigNumber? You tell me! This > obviously > > has major consequences for parsers. However, as long as you stay with > the > > original JS Number scope everything works just fine. > > > > One camp suggests that the right solution is to use some kind of > BigNumber > > as the underlying Number type which surely is one way dealing with *data > > type overloading*. > > > > Other people (including myself) are more pragmatic and pretty much > dismiss > > JSON Number as a suitable notation for numbers outside of the original JS > > scope. This view is also aligned with most IETF and W3C standards to > date > > defining JSON structures. > > > > Now to the challenge: Create a scheme that makes everybody happy! Well, > to > > be more realistic; create something that maybe nobody really likes, by > > supporting BOTH of the opposing views. > > > > Feel free slashing my minuscule change proposal: > > https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint/issues/162# > issuecomment-408679884 > > > > Cheers, > > Anders > > On 2018-08-01 05:37, Richard Gibson wrote: > >> > >> JSON is defined by ECMA-404 and RFC 8259, not by ECMA-262. An ECMAScript > >> JSON.parse implementation simply cannot accept e.g. 0n and still uphold > the > >> conformance guarantees <https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-json-object > >: > >> > >> Conforming implementations of *JSON.parse* and *JSON.stringify* must > >> support the exact interchange format described in the ECMA-404 > specification > >> without any deletions or extensions to the format. > >> > >> > >> Both BigInt and Symbol lack native support in JSON, and although adding > in > >> custom serialization is relatively easy, custom parsing is not because > >> JSON.parse doesn't expose the text used to produce a value. But in my > >> opinion, it would be a mistake to characterize that explicit lack of > support > >> as "limbo". > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 1:02 AM Anders Rundgren > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 2018-07-28 00:34, Richard Gibson wrote: > >> > As stated even more strongly in ECMA-404: > >> > > >> > Because it is so simple, it is not expected that the JSON > >> grammar will ever change. This gives JSON, as a foundational notation, > >> tremendous stability. > >> > > >> > >> Richard, that's great but it doesn't completely respond to my > "limbo" > >> claim: > >> > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2018-July/051388.html > >> > >> Take your pick! Whatever you come up with, I'm sure there will be > some > >> rotten tomatoes flying around :-) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> 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
