From: Dominique Devienne (ddevienne_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-24 13:55:54
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:11 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> [...] What we are missing, is a robust *container* for storing JSON values.
> Having a great container for representing all or part of a JSON document
does make it easier to write interoperable library components that work
> with JSON.
[...] For this to work, boost::json::value needs to be a good general
> purpose JSON container that satisfies most users. We can never satisfy
> ALL users; some design choices must represent tradeoffs between
> conflicting goals. The library I am providing, to propose to Boost
> eventually, places emphasis on the design of the JSON container
> because this is the surface which will be exposed between libraries.
> It is this part that hopefully will stimulate the growth of an
> ecosystem of libraries which use JSON and interoperate.
Sounds good to me. A boost::json::value with by-value semantic,
proper R-value support, a nice API, that's compact and efficient,
would have value. How different from boost::variant is it though? --DD
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk