Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 17, 2024 at 8:28:40 AM, Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I've got something working in Peggy (https://peggyjs.org <
> https://peggyjs.org/>) with a couple minutes of work.  I can publish it
> if it's useful.
>
> Or, start with
> https://github.com/peggyjs/peggy/blob/main/examples/json.pegjs and hack
> in whatever features you want.
>
> The approach that seems right to me is to make it explicit; bigint's get
> suffixed with 'n', and there is not automatic promotion to break existing
> code.
>

I think prefix not suffix? A nice thing about parson JSON is that you can
tell what kind of thing a value is by looking at its first character.


> If we were to add Date (which is absolutely the most important after
> bigint), I might want the other JS built-in types as well.  I wonder if we
> could reuse the CBOR tag registry, and make Date stringify to:
>
> 0('2024-01-17T16:26:23Z')
> or
> dt('2024-01-17T16:26:23Z')
>

I’d do @2024-01-17T16:26:23Z

>
>