You're right. In the value column, the id shows up as 50573744 which is the correct value. In the key column, it shows up as 53518364.
On May 11, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Randall Leeds wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:40, Jarrod Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Mike Keen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I guess I'm confused as to why JavaScript is ever even involved when >>> writing views in Erlang. Excuse my ignorance, but does all JSON go through >>> it? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> read all the comments to that bug report, it is the JSON parser that >> conforms to the limitations of JavaScript. And everything goes thru the JSON >> parser. >> > > I think we're missing the point. Even if the erlang JSON parser > conforms to JSON's notion of numbers then I'd expect the id to be > transformed the same way for both the key and the value. > > Maybe the key is implicitly treated as a string? Mike, which is the > "correct" value for the id?
