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

Re: [json] Re: json.js breaks for-in loops

Expand Messages
  • Martin Cooper
    ... Sure - if the for loop is in your own code, and not some other package that you re just trying to make use of. This issue really needs to be fixed in the
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 11/13/06, Stephen M. McKamey <jsonml@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Tom Metro <tmetro+json@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Peter Michaux wrote:
      > > > By extending the Object.prototype with the new property
      > toJSONString I
      > > > can no longer use for-in loops in my JavaScript.
      > >
      > > As another poster mentioned, using hasOwnProperty(), is the way to
      > make
      > > the intended behavior work. My understanding is that hasOwnProperty()
      > > isn't widely supported yet.
      >
      > A little late to the conversation but... another alternative could be
      > to use the typeof operator (assuming one was iterating over data):
      >
      > for(k in obj)
      > if("function"!=typeof obj[k])
      > foo(k);


      Sure - if the for loop is in your own code, and not some other package that
      you're just trying to make use of.

      This issue really needs to be fixed in the JSON code, since there's no way
      you can rely on it being fixed in all the other code out there that you
      might want to use.

      --
      Martin Cooper


      Thanks,
      > smm
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stephen M. McKamey
      // This should do what you are asking for while staying // current with Crockford s latest code: // after json.js has loaded... // define a namespace to
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        // This should do what you are asking for while staying
        // current with Crockford's latest code:

        // after json.js has loaded...
        // define a namespace to minimize footprint
        var JSON = {};

        // add all of the methods
        JSON.arrayToJSONString = Array.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.booleanToJSONString = Boolean.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.dateToJSONString = Date.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.numberToJSONString = Number.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.objectToJSONString = Object.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.stringToJSONString = String.prototype.toJSONString;
        JSON.parseJSON = String.prototype.parseJSON;

        // remove all the methods from intrinsic objects
        delete(Array.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(Boolean.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(Date.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(Number.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(Object.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(String.prototype.toJSONString);
        delete(String.prototype.parseJSON);

        --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Cooper" <mfncooper@...> wrote:
        > Sure - if the for loop is in your own code, and not some other
        package that
        > you're just trying to make use of.
        >
        > This issue really needs to be fixed in the JSON code, since there's
        no way
        > you can rely on it being fixed in all the other code out there that
        you
        > might want to use.
      • Martin Cooper
        ... Right. But I don t understand the resistance (or, actually, just lack of any feedback at all) to having the kind of solution I described before (in another
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 13, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 11/13/06, Stephen M. McKamey <jsonml@...> wrote:
          >
          > // This should do what you are asking for while staying
          > // current with Crockford's latest code:


          Right. But I don't understand the resistance (or, actually, just lack of any
          feedback at all) to having the kind of solution I described before (in
          another thread) incorporated into the original source code, so that we don't
          have to be going and deleting things like that. Here's what I suggested
          before, which is largely the same as yours, except that mine avoids creation
          where yours utilises deletion and is necessarily separate (and hence a
          little less easily maintained) from the original:

          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/557

          --
          Martin Cooper


          // after json.js has loaded...
          > // define a namespace to minimize footprint
          > var JSON = {};
          >
          > // add all of the methods
          > JSON.arrayToJSONString = Array.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.booleanToJSONString = Boolean.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.dateToJSONString = Date.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.numberToJSONString = Number.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.objectToJSONString = Object.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.stringToJSONString = String.prototype.toJSONString;
          > JSON.parseJSON = String.prototype.parseJSON;
          >
          > // remove all the methods from intrinsic objects
          > delete(Array.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(Boolean.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(Date.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(Number.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(Object.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(String.prototype.toJSONString);
          > delete(String.prototype.parseJSON);
          >
          > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Cooper" <mfncooper@...> wrote:
          > > Sure - if the for loop is in your own code, and not some other
          > package that
          > > you're just trying to make use of.
          > >
          > > This issue really needs to be fixed in the JSON code, since there's
          > no way
          > > you can rely on it being fixed in all the other code out there that
          > you
          > > might want to use.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Douglas Crockford
          JavaScript is an imperfect language. The weird interaction between augmentation of prototypes with the for..in statement is evidence of this. This defect in
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 14, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            JavaScript is an imperfect language. The weird interaction between
            augmentation of prototypes with the for..in statement is evidence of
            this. This defect in the language requires that for..in blocks
            explicitly filter out unwanted stuff that is dredged up from the
            prototype chain. See http://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/09/26/for-in-intrigue/

            json.js provides the same API that will be built into ECMAScript
            Fourth Edition. That means that if your program works with json.js,
            then it will work even better when the language is revised.

            Some people do not have the luxury of being forward looking. They have
            to work with bad code that does not filter for..in, or they claim the
            right to write bad code themselves. Those people should not be using
            json.js. Fortunately, JSON encoding and decoding is so easy, there
            isn't much effort required to make an implementation that works with
            bad code.

            JSON is a standard data representation. The json.js implementation is
            not the standard. It is a reference implementation. You are free to
            use it in any way that you want, or to not use it.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.