Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Carsten Bormann scripsit:

> So maybe it is more useful to point out that parsers (and that
> observation is not limited to JavaScript) might convert JSON's decimal
> numbers to a (binary or other) form, losing precision and range in
> the process.

I had range rather than precision in mind: if you parse "[1, 10, 1E400]",
you are likely to get either an exception or an array with 1.0, 10.0,
and Inf in it.  But my point is that ECMAScript implementations MUST
NOT represent 1E400 other than as Inf, nor 1.9999999999999999999999999
as other than 2.0.  The same is not true in other languages, notably
various Lisps.

> Section 4 now says:
> 
>    An implementation may set limits on the size of texts that it
>    accepts.  An implementation may set limits on the maximum depth of
>    nesting.  --> An implementation may set limits on the range of numbers. <--
>    An implementation may set limits on the length and character contents
>    of strings.
> 
> So maybe it is useful to point out that parsers (again, not just the
> ones that try to conform to a version of ECMAscript) are also likely
> to set limits on the precision of numbers

+1

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [e-mail]
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit