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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Now in SVN.


On 12/12/2012, at 3:25 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

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/