Message 1 of 76 , Sep 23, 2011View SourceStephan, your comment sums up my feelings nicely:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
> While i cannot argue against anything you say about numerics - it's all
> valid, as far as i'm concerned - the most beautiful thing about JSON is it's
> brain-deaded simplicity. While it is, technically speaking, unfortunate that
> we don't have a solid rule about how long a number may be, it is also
> refereshing not to have to think too much about that type of detail in my
> client code.
... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012View SourceOn Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
> The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
> So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.
-+ Tatu +-