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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Works for me.

On 17/12/2012, at 10:12 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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

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