Re: [json] Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> **Keep in mind that JSON does not specify any required numeric precision, and
> The only difference from JSON being that "Number" is broken out into:
> int32, int64 and double types for the purposes of making parsing of the
in case it matters.) e.g. in C89 there is no _portable_ int64 construct
(that was introduced with C99, but lots of projects still use/require C89
because of the very different levels of C99 support in various compilers). i
know that Java is everyone's special baby, but some of us actually write
JSON-consuming/producing C89 code. In the world of C++, Google's v8
be doubles on that platform.
In any case, i currently have a use case which will eventually require some
type of binary support, and i will be reading through what you've posted.
Thanks for sharing :).
----- stephan beal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On 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 +-