Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52808 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18373 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 20:15:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 20:15:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain cypressintegrated.com designates 69.28.242.152 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.28.242.152 rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [69.28.242.152] ([69.28.242.152:2698] helo=rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 20/00-18291-47FE7ED4 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:15:50 -0400 Received: from bad.dop.co ([192.168.87.152]) by rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com (Brand New Heavy v1.0) with ASMTP id LAR56204; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:15:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:14:35 -0400 Reply-To: Sanford Whiteman X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1793510026.20110602161435@cypressintegrated.com> To: John Crenshaw CC: PHP internals In-Reply-To: References: <4DE5368A.6050603@moonspot.net> <8BEEEE49-8DA3-4634-BF9C-120F7A15B613@roshambo.org> <68339132.20110602001939@cypressintegrated.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux) From: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com (Sanford Whiteman) > There's no need to be rude. If you can't make your point without > attacking people, then you need a better argument. If you can't make your point without misusing terms to the point of making yourself untrustworthy on that level alone, stop trying to argue. The "lazy programmer" axiom doesn't apply to terminology. > "JSON" in this case just means a simple object notation using {, [, > and :. You know that. Nope. I have NEVER heard a knowledgeable developer use "JSON" in this way. I consider myself a mid-level Javascript developer, so I'm always learning both formal coding patterns and informal jargon from people at the expert level -- but I've never heard this. Evidence, please, for this claim that the term "JSON" is so abused by people who provably know better. > "JSON" is the best word available. Give me a break. JavaScript object literal. As above, no knowledgeable JS dev refers to { name : function(args) } as actual or informal "JSON." > Unless you can suggest a better word to differentiate this format > from the others (one that isn't designed to insult anyone who > disagrees with you) stop fussing about it. You explicitly claimed that "any browser will take" your JSON-with-interpolated-function-return. And you firmly stated you wanted "par with all the other JSON parsers in the world." You're saying that, um, "JSON parser" and "JavaScript engine" are known to be interchangeable? Please, just... stop. The time taken here could be better spent reading the JSON and ES-232 specs than making up false "common knowledge." -- S.