Property Iteration in JSON serialization

Waldemar Horwat waldemar at
Wed Oct 14 16:24:35 PDT 2009

Brian Kardell wrote:
> It sounds to me like there is wide agreement in the sense that at
> least the basics rules and only disagreement on the fringes...
> Otherwise no one on this list in particular would be suggesting that
> there is anything remotely like a "de facto" implementation... It
> seems that at least those basic rules are required just to function
> with the existing expectations everywhere.
> It also seems that those expectations aren't likely to change any time
> soon for the "default" for-each iteration order whether more robust
> and interesting proposals are adopted...
> So can't that much be formalized and documented regardless of whether
> or not new introductions are made to over-ride "other" predictable
> iterators to be used in for-each (or perhaps even some new mechanism
> entirely)? The simple fact that conforming to the spec would currently
> create a non-workable solution seems to argue that at least the "de
> facto" parts should be included...
> No?

No.  As I wrote, there is no de-facto implementation order because the implementations do not agree on the order in general, and what you call "fringes" such as numbers do matter.  Trying to force, say, insertion order would likely break compatibility.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list