Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Don Owens <don@...> wrote:
> **It specifies neither a limit nor a minimum, at least as far as i was able to
> length? I don't think the JSON spec puts a limit on the size of an integer.
dig out of the RFC a few months ago. A 2-bit limit is, strictly speaking,
> If there is no way to encode large integers in your spec, people willIf they're concerned with JSON and its portability they'll "probably" (i
> invent their own way of doing it -- it's better to have a standard way of
doesn't separate int/double, and instead has a Number type with at least 53
significant bits. In my own code i use JSON doubles in lieu of int64, which
avoids the immediate incompatibility but probably also has range-related
overflow/underflow issues when using "really, really large" values (which my
uses cases haven't called for so far).
----- 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 +-