Boost logo

Boost :

From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-18 09:27:47

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 16:46, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The point that I would like to raise is the tension between having
> relatively small types (int64_t, uint64_t, double) represent numbers in
> json::value on the one hand, and ECMA specification allowing arbitrarily
> big/precise numbers in JSON format on the other.

As far as I'm concerned any JSON library that doesn't address this is defective.
It's not rocket science: just allow access to the actual string
representation, don't try to convert it to a bunch of random types.

This library doesn't even provide it in its low-level API and forces
undesired conversion to int64/double onto users.
Parsing text in general should only be in charge of segmenting the
text, not synthesizing attributes from those segments.

> In that other view, if I have objects of types
> `boost::multiprecision::cpp_int` my only option is to pass them as strings
> in JSON protocol. But I can pass any number as string anyway, so what is
> the use of numbers in JSON format? Uness it is just practical: you can
> choose to use numbers and then internal representations of JSON may be
> smaller.

I personally do encode my decimal numbers (which have values that are
not representable as double) as numbers in JSON.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at