Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Anyone have any comments on what I suggested below?

Barry

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Personally -- to me, it seems like you're getting hung up on the word "add."
> ...
>> "add" means what the format definition says it means, because otherwise
>> we have to rationalise all of the different systems people might use it with
>> to make sense.
>
> OK, I'll buy that.  Then let's take a different approach, and make it
> clearer that it's Humpty Dumpty's version of "add", so maybe neither I
> nor Alice will get hung up on it:
>
> OLD
>    The "add" operation adds a new value at the target location. The
>    operation object MUST contain a "value" member that specifies the
>    value to be added.
> NEW
>    The "add" operation performs the following function, depending upon
>    what the target location references (see details below):
>
>    o  If the target location specifies an array index, a new value is
>       inserted into the array at the specified index.
>
>    o  If the target location specifies an object member that does not
>       already exist, a new member is added to the object.
>
>    o  If the target location specifies an object member that does
>       exist, that member's value is replaced.
> END
>
> That may be wordier than we need, but I think it makes the point...
> feel free to wordsmith.  With something like that, I think we can say
> that we had to pick a name, "add" was picked, and it means exactly
> what we choose it to mean - neither more nor less.  And that's glory
> for you.
>
> Barry