Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@...>wrote:
> I think it is patronizing to suggest that something as simple asNot beyond the skills - beyond the patience and needs. i host 2 (C and C++)
> supporting Big Integer and -Decimal would be beyond skills of
> competent parser writers -- world is full of XML, YAML and BSON
JSON libraries and i have absolutely no need for big numbers, so i would
never bother to add them. Because of that, people who DO want big numbers
won't even take a second look at my libs. i.e., mine then die out through
----- 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 +-