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

Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • rkalla123
    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
    Message 1 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      Best,
      Riyad

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Hi! Is it still this doc:
      > >
      > >
      > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12SimAfBVcl8Fd-lr_SSBkM5B_PyEhDRfhgu1Lzvfpfw/edit
      > >
      >
      > Sorry, ignore the dumb question. i was still waiting on my netbook do load
      > that doc when i wrote that, and just now saw that the top of that doc
      > references the latest draft.
      >
      > --
      > ----- stephan beal
      > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
      > http://gplus.to/sgbeal
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • 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.