What if `JSON.parse` took an options object as the second parameter? There's already been an instance of a JS API changing from booleans to an options object: `addEventListener`.
I know it wasn't tc39, but it shows that it's possible. Another option is to add a different method to the `JSON` object. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 13:45 Richard Gibson <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, understood. And setting aside the undesirable characteristics of boolean > trap <https://ariya.io/2011/08/hall-of-api-shame-boolean-trap> interfaces > for the moment (which will certainly be a source of regret if ECMAScript > ever gets a BigFloat), my point is that doing so would affect parsing of > *all* numbers, as opposed to only those numbers that really should be > BigInts. For example, let's look at a sample Twitter API entity > <https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/data-dictionary/overview/tweet-object> > : > > { "created_at":"Thu Apr 06 15:24:15 +0000 2017", "id": 850006245121695744, > "id_str": "850006245121695744", "text": "1/ Today we’re sharing our vision > for the future of the Twitter API platform!nhttps://t.co/XweGngmxlP";, > "user": { "id": 6253282, > "id_str": "6253282", > "name": "Twitter API", > "screen_name": "twitterapi", > "followers_count": 21, > "friends_count": 32 }, "entities": {} } > > > It's nice that e.g. JSON.parse(…, null, true) would allow us to access > the ids as full-fidelity numbers (Twitter documents them as an int64), but > much less nice that the behavior would affect all numbers. For instance, > let's say this is one tweet in a list that we want to sort by the "follower > ratio" of their creators: > > let creatorPopularity = tweet.user.followers_count / > tweet.user.friends_count; > > // (without parse-as-BigInt) → 0.65625 > > // (with parse-as-BigInt) → 0n > > > We just silently lost floating-point arithmetic. > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 1:00 PM Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This would be the correct understanding here, a 4th parameter read as a >> boolean. >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:27 Peter Jaszkowiak <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> He was recommending a single parameter for "parse ints as bigints", not >>> changing the default behavior. >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 09:58 Richard Gibson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> First, note that reviver functions *do* manipulate the result after >>>> it's parsed. Second, "parse ints as bigints" is too big a hammer—changing >>>> the output for all numbers would break currently working code. And third, >>>> it's not even fully sufficient for the "big numbers" purpose, which >>>> logically also includes non-integers outside the IEEE 754 64-bit range >>>> ("BigFloat"). >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:50 AM Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just because something exists doesn't mean it'll be broadly used. >>>>> Plus, reviver functions are normally incredibly simple - you don't get >>>>> enough context (like key paths) to do anything crazy, and this proposal >>>>> doesn't give you enough context for that. >>>>> >>>>> In practice, this changes literally nothing for most consumers, since >>>>> the use case is incredibly limited and usually requires server agreement >>>>> as >>>>> well. In fact, that's where my skepticism lies: why add 3 new reviver >>>>> parameters when a single "parse ints as bigints" would solve basically the >>>>> entire problem? I've yet to see any other use case that couldn't be solved >>>>> by manipulating the result after it's parsed. >>>>> >>>>> But personally, I don't see how bugs would be a major issue here >>>>> considering its limited utility. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 02:01 kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> wish to express skepticism for the stage-1 proposal "JSON.parse >>>>>> source text access" [1], from web-integration perspective. >>>>>> >>>>>> a common javascript-painpoint is pinpointing bug-source of end-to-end >>>>>> client<->server communications. thankfully, JSON.parse is rarely suspect >>>>>> in this process. this proposal however, encourage developers to >>>>>> introduce >>>>>> bugs/doubts-of-reliability to JSON.parse, making integration bug-hunting >>>>>> more painful than it already is. >>>>>> >>>>>> standard-operating-procedure for reviving JSON-data is a 2-step >>>>>> process: >>>>>> 1. JSON.parse with zero-config to rule-out bugs during this step >>>>>> 2. second-pass of plain-JSON to revive [product-specific] >>>>>> string-encoded non-JSON datatypes like BigInt/Date/RegExp, where >>>>>> bugs can be expected >>>>>> >>>>>> you normally do not want to complicate bug-hunts by contaminating >>>>>> step-1 with bugs from step-2. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] stage-1 proposal - JSON.parse source text access >>>>>> https://github.com/gibson042/ecma262-proposal-JSON-parse-with-source >>>>>> >>>>>> kai zhu >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
