On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:17:05 +0100, Erik wrote:
> On 15/06/17 15:10, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:00 AM, alister <alister.w...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Json is designed to be legal Javascript code & therefore directly
>>> executable so no parser is posible.
>>>
>>>
>> "no parser is possible"???
>
> I *think* alister meant "so it is possible to not use a parser
> [library]" (i.e., parse the stream using JavaScript's parser via eval()
> - though I agree with everyone else who has said this should never be
> done).
>
> I may be wrong about what alister meant, but the language reminds me of
> a German colleague of mine from a few years back who wrote in some API
> update documentation "Specifying parameter X is no longer an option".
> What he meant was "is now mandatory" or "is no longer optional". To a
> native English speaker, it reads as "can no longer be used" which is the
> opposite of what he meant ...
>
> E.
indeed, I missed a few words in my statement
caused by me re-composing my thoughts on the fly.
(The non native English speaker excuse is not an option for me)
--
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.
-- Lily Tomlin
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
