Re: [boost] [review][JSON] json::value as a vocabulary type

On Sep 26, 2020, at 8:37 AM, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 23:55, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

So, I think at some point I will want to introduce options for serialization, and one of the options could be the treatment of integers outside the range ~+/-2^53. We could:

1. serialize them as-is (current implementation) 2. serialize them as the nearest representable IEEE double 3. throw an exception

I know some people might find #3 weird, I'm open to feedback.

What's the problem with storing it as a string or as an arbitrary number when it's not representable as int64 or a double? It doesn't cost anything to do this, it's a pure extension with no impact on people that don't need it.

Do you mean encoding `int64_t`/`uint64_t` into JSON as a string, when either: (a) their value otherwise lose precision or even just (b) always? Let’s call those options #4a and #4b. Obviously they can’t be default behavior because they don't round-trip. #4a seems inconsistent behavior to me, but :shrug: #4b seems reasonable, as it’s a common choice people seem to make to keep precision today. -hadriel