Re: [Json] -0.0

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

<no hat>

The additions that we are making about interoperability are about things that a significant number of JSON users might expect. The likely-forthcoming "implementation advice" document can take care of telling implementers of JSON encoders and parsers what they should consider.

On Sep 29, 2013, at 5:28 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Tim Bray scripsit:
> 
>> Yeah, but my opinion is shifting here... it's starting to feel to me
>> like there's nothing remotely JSON-specific about the problems around
>> -0.
> 
> There isn't, but JSON is what we are working on today.  "It is not
> incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty
> to desist from it." (R. Tarfon, _Pirke Avot_ 2:21, ca. 100 C.E.)

"Don't boil the ocean." (Lots of people, recently.)

> 
>> - Remove "are represented without "frac" or "exp" parts (for example
>> as 3 not 3.0)"
> 
> +1

+1

>> - Lose the whole paragraph beginning "Numbers which represent zero
>> without a sign...
> 
> -1
> 
>> Less is more. Is anyone passionate about keeping either?
> 
> I do feel that we should warn about negative zero.  Unlike XML, JSON
> claims to transmit numbers, and we should warn about the limits of that
> capability.

Number geeks^wspecialsts might expect certain things about -0, but the vast majority of normal JSON users won't. I think it is fine to remove the paragraph and assume that a more in-depth discussion will happen in the companion document.

--Paul Hoffman