On 2010-03-01 22:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/1/2010 7:56 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Erik Max Francis<m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
Patrick Maupin wrote:
This not only seriously stretching the meaning of the term "superset"
(as Python is most definitely not even remotely a superset of JSON), but
Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but seriously, if I take valid
JSON, replace unquoted true with True, unquoted false with False,
replace unquoted null with None, and take the quoted strings and
replace occurrences of \uXXXX with the appropriate unicode, then I do,
in fact, have valid Python. But don't take my word for it -- try it
out!
To me this is so strained that I do not see why why you are arguing the
point. So what? The resulting Python 'program' will be equivalent, I
believe, to 'pass'. Ie, construct objects and then discard them with no
computation or output.
Not if you eval() rather than exec(). It's reasonably well-accepted that JSON is
very close to being a subset of Python's expression syntax with just a few
modifications.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
