> On 22 Feb 2019, at 22:52, Esteban Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> El vie., 22 feb. 2019 a las 18:24, Sven Van Caekenberghe
> (<s...@stfx.eu>) escribió:
>>
>> Good catch.
>>
>> Indeed, JSON keys have to be strings.
>>
>> The question is, should the writer convert them for you, or should you
>> simply not use them ?
>>
>> I mean, there are many Pharo constructs that cannot be converted to JSON.
>>
>> Some could be output to JSON, but you won't be able to read them back in.
>> So, if conversion would happen, the dictionary with integer keys will be
>> read back with strings keys.
>
> This is the same as with any object, you can serialize any object to a
> JSON object ({"foo": "baz"...}), but you can't read it back UNLESS you
> know exactly what to convert it to.
>
> Maybe there should be an "integer" mapping that converts the number in
> string representation back to an Integer when deserializing it.
>
>
>> In STON, keys can be anything, even complex objects, like in Pharo itself.
>
> That's why STON is better. :)
>
>
>> What will you do with { (1@2)->100 } asDictionary in JSON ?
>
> That is not valid JSON and not even JS. I mean, AFAIU in JS properties
> are also strings, even array indices.
>
> Try to do this:
>> JSON.stringify({{x: 1, y: 2}: 100})
>
> And it will fail.
>
> E.g.
>> point = {x: 1, y: 2};
>> object = {point: 100}
>> object
> < {point: 100}
>
> There the "point" is a literal, not a variable reference.
>
> But if instead you do
>> point = {x: 1, y: 2};
>> object = {}.
>> object[point] = 100;
>> object
> < {[object Object]: 100}
>
> you get a frankenstein because the key got converted to a string:
>
>> Object.keys(obj)
> < ["[object Object]"]
>
> The issue here is that the JSON writer creates invalid JSON syntax.
> So it's either JSON (valid) or it's something else.
OK, that is a very good point.
So you if it gave an error that would be good too ?
> Not that I'm a fan of this, but I got bitten when submitting a
> document to CouchDB which got rejected because of this invalid syntax.
>
> To make things worse:
>> object = {1: 'foo'}
>> object[1]
> < "foo"
>> object["1"]
> < "foo"
>
> WAT! [1]
>
>
>> I have to think about this.
>
> Food for thought for the weekend.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
>
> Esteban A. Maringolo
