JSON support for BigInt in Chrome/V8
anders.rundgren.net at gmail.com
Wed Jul 18 05:10:35 UTC 2018
Serializing BigInts as quoted strings is compatible with Java JSON-B, Json.NET and can be poly-filled for older JS implementations.
In addition, this is also compatible with non-schema based parsing.
AFAIK, no IETF standard to date which depends on extended numbers (like JOSE) break the I-JSON recommendations.
On 2018-07-18 06:16, Isiah Meadows wrote:
> The way this conversation is going, we might as well just create a
> schema-based JSON serialization DSL for both parsing and stringifying.
> But I don't really see that as helpful in the *language itself* at
> least as a mandatory part of the spec (maybe an optional built-in
> I've in the past few months seen similar things come up a few times
> already. I like the idea of a built-in schema-based JSON validator +
> parser (it'd be faster than what we currently have), but most things
> out there suck in some way, mostly just being boilerplatey, and
> there's a lot of design work to get out of the way first before you
> can come up with something that doesn't.
> But as it stands, the only things I'd support for the `JSON` global itself are:
> 1. Adding separate prototypes for `JSON.stringify(source, options)`
> and `JSON.parse(source, options)`, so it's easier to extend and
> comprehend the arguments.
> 2. Adding an option to parse anything consisting of purely digits (no
> exponent or decimal) as a BigInt, regardless of size.
> 3. Adding an option to stringify BigInts into integer-only numbers and
> normal numbers into unconditional floats.
> These could be either separate methods or part of a 4th options argument.
> Isiah Meadows
> me at isiahmeadows.com
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Michael J. Ryan <tracker1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Out of bounds as you'd still have to parse it, but for encoding, could add
>> BigInt.prototype.toJSON ...
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 15:44 Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
>>> I guess a better example would've been `Boolean('false')` returns true,
>>> but yeah, I've moved slightly forward already with everything, if you read
>>> other messages.
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:06 AM Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com>
>>>> On 07/17/2018 04:27 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>>>>> actually, never mind ... but I find it hilarious that
>>>>> BigInt('55555555555555555550000000000000000000001') works but
>>>>> BigInt('55555555555555555550000000000000000000001n') doesn't ^_^;;
>>>> That's no different from how other built-in types work. String('"foo"')
>>>> doesn't give you the same string as the string literal "foo".
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss