RE: CIF-JSON new draft
- Subject: RE: CIF-JSON new draft
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 13:09:08 +0000
- Accept-Language: en-US
- authentication-results: iucr.org; dkim=none (message not signed)header.d=none;iucr.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=STJUDE.ORG;
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SJCRH.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-stjude-org;h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;bh=OBgvZX94hXJkPVgri3m6vNs5QxneVSuMT72q+i6tgRY=;b=GI0J51ru1yMhuaPT7Z0te9xdDI24QlG6R3MYrPYPcMhwd0CyVkRWZQA2pdeLlVcYAxTwpWD0F23Jsl23MRvOhgGksVRuTLyif0hKl+Bro/kkGQyH1AM4mv6pd/glbqRv59Er+trCvYT7xw+666IUtaHxPdz7Gaaa3bwqg/Mf2j8=
- In-Reply-To: <CAF_YUvXkWoPFpgHe7u4Pr+h7SLtpypmAU0aSBfFD294fQdUvZA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2ey9kKLoZY=WE7Uy-fiWTGhQaFx7fcgODcYfhrNPwXkQw@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB05123A9F46812A3372A252FCE0160@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><MWHPR04MB051249D1082721C51E84232FE0160@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAF_YUvVjKTmCC18=pNGgANU25phE8Gij9=boT=nw8vUZQKPHmw@mail.gmail.com><CACaHzQVW=koD_QV+70veqQL0PFQxLkB_Xhgs61xGK6_FTr91Fw@mail.gmail.com><CAF_YUvXkWoPFpgHe7u4Pr+h7SLtpypmAU0aSBfFD294fQdUvZA@mail.gmail.com>
- spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
In the particular case of JSON-C, this appears to be a recognized shortcoming. The most recent version provides a new function for accessing object fields that works around the problem, though it is not a drop-in replacement for the old. I anticipate that similar issues will be relatively common in other implementations, however, and it would be naïve to suppose that such implementations will not be used to handle CIF-JSON.
Now, this may be an issue that we simply choose to accept. I never said it was *impossible* to distinguish between absent and present-but-null in any implementation I know about or contemplate, so it is not a fatal flaw. But I am considering how to make CIF-JSON as easy to program for as possible, by making design choices that minimize gotchas for users.
From: cif-developers [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Behalf Of Robert Hanson
That's true. I hadn't thought of that. Of course, that's what the === operator is for.
John, what's the issue?
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Marcin Wojdyr <email@example.com> wrote:
Robert M. Hanson
Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer
_______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Re: CIF-JSON new draft (James Hester)