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
> 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:
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk