You're having a laugh, Alan?
Basically you're saying - to have robust code - we should actually not use
isJson() because it's neither use nor ornament, instead you're advocating
this instead:
try {
foo = deserializeJson(bar);
} catch(any e){
// if only I could have reliably verified it was JSON first.
}
That's rather disappointing.
It should me *my* call if I want the overhead of checking the JSON twice so
my code is robust, not yours. You should be focusing on making your work do
what it says on the tin, and let me worry about how I use it.
--
Adam
On Thursday, 4 April 2013 22:03:10 UTC+13, Alan Williamson wrote:
>
> This is known and our documentation clearly states that this is not a
> true exhaustive test:
>
> http://openbd.org/manual/?/function/isjson
>
> For performance reasons we take a "guess-estimate" as to whether or not
> the string looks like JSon. We don't want to do a complete conversion
> just so someone can then do a complete conversion again.
>
>
> On 02/04/2013 03:32, Adam Cameron wrote:
> > The first instance says "true" to the isJson() call, but then errors
> > on the deserializeJson() call. isJson() is incorrect here: the string
> > is not valid JSON.
> >
>
>
--
--
online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/
http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open
BlueDragon" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
