On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:58:38AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:43 AM Steven D'Aprano <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Please forgive the stupid question, but given that the JSON standard is
> > so obviously broken (being unable to serialise valid values from a
> > supported type, what on earth were they thinking???), wouldn't all this
> > time and energy be better aimed at fixing the standard rather than
> > making Python's JSON encoder broken by default?
> >
>
> What do you mean? JSON doesn't have a "float" type with IEEE
> semantics. It just has a "Number" type, which is defined syntactically
> but not semantically. It doesn't mandate 53-bit precision, for
> instance, so you can carry large integers between languages that
> support them.
I never mentioned float type or 53 bit precision.
In Javascript:
js> typeof(NaN)
number
js> typeof(Infinity)
number
Odd as it may seem, NANs and INFs are numbers. And the JSON standard
isn't capable of encoding them. The JSON standard defines "number" in
such a way that even in the language that originated JSON, it can't
represent all numbers.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2NKDXX4MADMTONIEUYDHCGKX4KFF5FB3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
