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

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • John Cowan
    ... They all look fine to me. -- We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do, John Cowan What we must, muddily must, muddily must,
    Message 1 of 76 , Feb 19, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      rkalla123 scripsit:

      > I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes I have planned for
      > the Universal Binary JSON Specification (http://ubjson.org) Draft 9
      > before I made them official.

      They all look fine to me.

      --
      We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do, John Cowan <cowan@...>
      What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
      Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
      Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust. --Bokonon
    • 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
      View Source
      • 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.