Re: [Json] JSL: Clarifying purpose, and renaming it to JDDF

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

I agree that that is somewhat arbitrary, but I'd say the length of a string
is its length in bytes in UTF-8 encoding, given that UTF-8 is the standard
encoding of JSON.

On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM Ulysse Carion <[e-mail]> wrote:

> How is such a thing supposed to work portably? What is the "length" of
> a JSON string, and does this have any correspondence to the memory
> representation of that string, post-parsing?
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 4:14 PM John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The argument for it is precisely in situations where static allocation
> is required along with static typing.  If you know the (maximum) length,
> you can safely allocate a fixed amount of memory for your internal
> representation, which you cannot do otherwise.   Languages with static
> types and garbage collection (allowing dynamic allocation) are just one
> particular kind of languages, and I think you need to accommodate all
> widely used kinds of languages.  I wouldn't object to skipping bounded
> arrays and strings in favor of just fixed-length ones.
> >
> > See < http://www.catb.org/esr/microjson/>, a JSON-subset parser written
> in C that imposes exactly this restriction so that it can run safely on
> embedded systems with only small amounts of RAM.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 7:03 PM Ulysse Carion <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure -- but you could use the length validation as a hint to code
> >> generators, and a warning to data producers that the application will,
> >> post JDDF-level validation, do additional length checks.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure the need for length validation is strong enough to merit
> >> its inclusion in this version of the spec.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 3:42 PM John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Section 2.3 says that extensions can't be validation-related, so a
> length limitation would most certainly be a matter of validation.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Ulysse Carion <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Fixed-length strings and arrays both sound like things one could
> >> >> implement with extensions, no?
> >> >>
> >> >> Tuples are a very sensible suggestion. But I wonder if we can live
> >> >> without them? I very much want to keep JDDF as small as possible.
>