On 2017-06-15, Erik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15/06/17 15:10, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:00 AM, alister <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Json is designed to be legal Javascript code & therefore directly
>>> executable so no parser is posible.
>>>
>>
>> "no parser is possible"???
>
> I *think* alister meant "so it is possible to not use a parser
> [library]" (i.e., parse the stream using JavaScript's parser via eval()
> - though I agree with everyone else who has said this should never be done).
The old operator order/precedence issue strikes again...
(no parser) is possible
vs.
no (parser is possible)
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm definitely not
at in Omaha!
gmail.com
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
