On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> 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 ...
Ohhh, got it. Well, that's technically true, but it's still not a fault of JSON. A proper parser exists in most web languages' standard libraries, and can probably be picked up for any language you like. So I still stand by my declaration ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
