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

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • John Cowan
    ... It s notable that neither of these provides an int64 type, only signed and unsigned 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit integers plus short and long floats. -- Dream
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 21, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephan Beal scripsit:

      > http://www.lbi.co.uk/blog/latest/typed-arrays-in-javascript/
      > http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/

      It's notable that neither of these provides an int64 type, only
      signed and unsigned 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit integers plus
      short and long floats.

      --
      Dream projects long deferred John Cowan <cowan@...>
      usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
      --James Lileks
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-
      Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
        > Stephan,
        >
        > 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.

        For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
        good thing.

        -+ Tatu +-
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.