Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1060Re: [json] Re: JSON syntax grammar is missing 'undefined' literal value

Expand Messages
  • Gregg Irwin
    May 27 10:48 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Greg,

      GP> As far as JSON goes -- by definition: it is "JavaScript Object
      GP> Notation" -- so -- on the technical definition -- JSON is in fact a
      GP> "JavaScript-ONLY" object notation mechanism.

      I've never interpreted it that way. I always took the JS part to mean
      that JSON's syntax was based on JavaScript's syntax, which gives you
      context (and a nice acronym :). From what I've read, JSON is meant to
      be language independent. If they change the JS/ECMA standard to
      something that doesn't support that goal, JSON won't work well with
      its namesake.

      On undefined, I don't think JSON needs it, even if some languages have
      it. In my language of choice, as with some others, dealing with
      undefined can make for more work, and not much more value (IMO). If
      it's undefined, why is it there? Not to say it's never useful, but it
      doesn't seem crucial in an object notation like JSON.

      Ironically, it would probably be easier for me to add undefined/unset
      support to the JSON module for REBOL (my language of choice) than it
      is to support strings as keys in objects (which it can't, really).

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic