Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language is nearly done: int53

[Pete Cordell <[e-mail]>]

On 30/07/2019 05:34, Manger, James wrote:
>> Perhaps int53 is a footgun for reasons similar to int64? Folks in 
> practice might pretend int53 is int64 for all intents and purposes, 
> incurring the same problems.
> 
> You have to be fairly wilful to ignore that “int53” isn’t designed for 
> all 64-bit integers.
> 
> And if 1 party ignored that, it is immediately obvious who is “at fault” 
> when interop fails.
> 
> How crucial is it that code-gen can create uint8, int32 fields etc? As 
> JSON is the exchange format you aren’t saving any bytes for 
> transmission. I guess you might save a few bytes in memory. I’m not sure 
> how important that is. If it is, those cases don’t have to use code-gen.

int8 etc let's you know that 8 bits is sufficient. It doesn't mean it 
has to be stored in an 8 bit integer.  But it can be if that helps your 
system.

> Include int8, int16, & int32 and people will want int64 (or extrapolate 
> some implementations to int64).
> 
> Include int53 and they’ll know that’s all they get.

IoT is supposedly still on the increase. Some smaller systems do not 
have float types so the one true int53 type doesn't work there.



Allow the specification to capture the information the designers need to 
build their system and let them work out how to meet the requirements.


Pete.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------