Property Iteration in JSON serialization

Brian Kardell bkardell at
Wed Oct 14 20:34:02 PDT 2009

Sorry... somehow Waldemar's comment got closed up in my Gmail
conversation stack and I missed this comment...

If Oliver and  Hallvord and Brendan are wrong on the idea that it is
at least largely already a de facto standard for non-indexed
properties then  I suppose it is a moot point...

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at> wrote:
> 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.
>   Waldemar

More information about the es-discuss mailing list