Re: [review][JSON] json::value as a vocabulary type

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-24 12:19:48

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:58 AM Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> My understanding of a "vocabulary type" is that it should be usable (not
> necessarily with maximum efficiency) for *any* usage. In the case of JSON

When I use the term I refer to the ability to build higher level
abstractions. Here's a perfect example:

<https://github.com/arun11299/cpp-jwt>

This library implements RFC-7519 and uses objects of type
nlohmann::json in its public interface.

I argue that boost::json::value would be a superior type to what this
library currently uses. That is what is meant when Boost.JSON claims
to be a "vocabulary type." It certainly does not mean that arbitrary
precision numbers are supported, that every possible use-case is
supported, or that it can store any payload with perfect fidelity.

Thanks