Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:50 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> **Don's point is valid but it assumes that every environment has this support,
> bigdouble - marker 'W'
> [W][222 big-endian ordered bytes representing a BigDecimal]
and that's not the case. Maybe his use cases/environments have that. When
writing generic code, however, "big numbers" don't exist.
----- 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 +-