On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 17:11 +0000, rkalla123 wrote: Ah, sorry, wasn t aware there was an updated spec yet. Just read it. Most of my questions were resolved inSep 26, 2011 1 of 76View Source
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 17:11 +0000, rkalla123 wrote:
Ah, sorry, wasn't aware there was an updated spec yet. Just read it.
Most of my questions were resolved in the latest spec.
A couple more points, now based on this spec:
1. Will huge "H" numbers in UBJSON follow the JSON specification on
2. It's worth noting in your specification what representation of double
you're supporting. I presume it's IEEE 754?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-Feb 20, 2012 76 of 76View 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 +-