Thanks for the reply. My responses inline below. On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:14:52 PM UTC+2, burak serdar wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:53 AM Jonathan Hall <fli...@flimzy.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > Can you say more? Better in which way? > > Better in the way that it wouldn't change existing code.
That doesn't seem like a benefit, in its own right I understand the desire not to just change code for its own sake, or add extra features nobody needs. But people have been asking for these types of features for several years. This doesn't seem like a frivolous code change to me. > Also, I think > the use cases for existing and proposed json encoders/decoders are > different enough to justify a separate implementation. I don't think I agree with this. The proposal deals with a subset of current use cases, but not, strictly speaking, a _different set_ of use cases. And the number of commentators on the issues linked above, I think lends weight to the idea that the use cases this proposal addresses are not insignificant, or fundamentally "different". If I were to fork the standard `encoding/json` library, and add my proposed functionality, the code would still be 95% the same. Standard reasons for sharing code apply, as far as I can tell. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/df688733-a2e9-4bc8-aa7b-09267827007a%40googlegroups.com.
